Introduction  

Another failed property developer has just been made bankrupt in Australia, this time with a difference – he was already bankrupt in New Zealand. Bank of Western Australia (Bank) v David Stewart Henderson (No. 3) [2011] FMCA 840 is another Australian cross-border insolvency case in which we have successfully tested the boundaries of the Cross-Border Insolvency Act 2008 (Cth) (the CBIA), this time with the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth).

Facts

The Bridgecorp Group collapsed and receivers were appointed on 2 July 2007. The companies comprising the group were subsequently also placed in liquidation. The First and Second Defendants in the case were two of the Bridgecorp Group (Receivers and Managers appointed) (in Liquidation).

The directors faced numerous civil and criminal charges for alleged Wrongful Acts including alleged false statements in prospectuses, extension certificates and investment statements issued to prospective investors.

Background: the Timbercorp Group

The statutory exemption can be refreshed each time a person signs a new contract, even if he/she continues to hold the same position.

Receivers of a failed company have been unable to convince the Federal Court that statutory restrictions on termination payments reduced the payout entitlement of a senior executive (White v Norman; In the Matter of Forest Enterprises Australia Limited (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (in Administration) [2012] FCA 33).

Background

On 5 October 2011, the NSW Supreme Court upheld an application pursuant to s 440D(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the Corporations Act) for leave to bring and continue proceedings against a defendant under voluntary administration.

One could almost be forgiven for thinking that nowadays delayed second creditors' meetings are just par for the course.

Applications to extend the time for the second meeting - often for months - have become quite routine, and are rarely (if ever) refused.

Some observers might thus wonder if we are losing sight of one of the objectives of the VA procedure - that it "should be expeditious".^[1]

In the recent case of Dwyer & Ors and Davies & Ors v Chicago Boot Co Pty Ltd [2011] SASC 27, Chicago Boot claimed that certain payments made to it by two insolvent companies were not unfair preference payments, because of, amongst other defences, the purported application of a retention of title clause in relation to the supply of goods by Chicago Boot.

The Australian unit trust industry recently experienced financial difficulties. The formal legal process of handling those difficulties has revealed gaps in the Australian regulatory map.

This article highlights some of those problems and the Government’s response to them.

Background

During the administration of a company, liquidators may identify creditors who have received payments in preference to other creditors, and apply to the court pursuant to section 588FF of the Corporations Act 2001 (Act) to recover those payments in order to achieve a more equitable distribution amongst all creditors.

What constitutes a preferential payment?

Amaca Pty Ltd v McGrath & Anor as liquidators of HIH Underwriting and Insurance (Australia) Pty Ltd [2011] NSWSC 90