Six month extensions to convening periods should not be seen as a fait accompli, particularly if the administrator's application is opposed.

There is a commonly held belief that courts will readily grant an administrator's application for an extension to the convening period. This might have been true once, but it is fast turning into an urban myth, judging by two recent decisions in the Federal Court.

In insolvency circles, the word "success" is definitely a relative term. Often it only means that a complete meltdown of the company's business has been averted, or that employees have at least received their statutory entitlements on their way out the door.

The ABC Learning Centre story has, however, definitely been a success by any measure – including some measures which are not generally part of the metrics of insolvency.[1] In order to see why this insolvency administration deal was both unique and uniquely successful, it is necessary to understand some of the background.

Before embarking on any litigation, or continuing any litigation that is on foot at the time of the liquidator's appointment, a liquidator should carefully weigh up the benefits and risks of pursuing a particular course of action.

A liquidator can be exposed personally in litigation. We discuss the risks to a liquidator associated with litigation by examining some recent cases where liquidators have been ordered to pay costs personally. We provide guidance on ways to mitigate this risk.

Balancing risk – weighing up competing priorities

The Kaboko judgment brings comfort to directors who hold D&O insurance policies, or those seeking to bring proceedings against directors of an insolvent company, provided the claim is not based in whole or in part on the company's insolvency.

As deleveraging to control transactions continue to be part of the legal landscape in Australia, we anticipate seeing further examples, particularly where the distressed company is a listed entity. 

Key Points:

In some circumstances a plaintiff/claimant can bypass a defendant (even an insolvent one) and seek a declaration against the defendant's insurer.

The High Court has confirmed that, if a defendant is insolvent, the plaintiff may seek a declaration that the defendant's insurer is liable to indemnify the defendant, at least when:

The recent decision of Modcol Pty Ltd v National Buildplan Group Pty Ltd ^[1] addressed whether leave should be granted to a subcontractor to allow it to commence proceedings against a contractor in administration in respect of the subcontractor's rights under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW) (the SOP Act).

Your insurer goes bust – can you as an insured claim the reinsurance proceeds? An important decision in the NSW Supreme Court gives useful guidance on when a court will allow departures from the statutory scheme controlling the application of reinsurance proceeds (Amaca Pty Ltd v McGrath & Anor as liquidators of HIH Underwriting and Insurance (Australia) Pty Ltd [2011] NSWSC 90).

The insurer goes broke, and there are all these claimants at the door…

Companies post-restructuring are not subject to the rules protecting creditors of insolvent companies in section 588FL of the Corporations Act 2001.

Get your 5 Minute Fix of major projects and construction news. This issue: significant security of payment reform on the agenda in WA, review of the BCIIP Act tabled, Infrastructure Victoria's report on the investment required to support automated and zero emissions vehicles, more on cladding and the High Court grants special leave to consider the availability of a quantum meruit claim as an alternative to contract damages upon repudiation of a building contract.

Review of security of payment reform for WA subcontractors released