In Pearce, in the matter of Bandiera Holdings Pty Ltd (Receiver Appointed) (in liquidation) v Bandiera Holdings Pty Ltd [2022] FCA 876, the Federal Court of Australia considered when a summons for the examination can require the production of any professional indemnity insurance policy against which the company might have a claim, even in circumstances where the examinee asserts that any potential claims against it were weak.

The Probuild and Virgin Australia administrations confirm that virtual meetings in external administrations are now an integral part of insolvency in a post-pandemic world. Although recent changes to the Insolvency Practice Rules (Corporations) 2016 (Cth) (IPR) provide greater flexibility, there are aspects that insolvency practitioners need to consider and Court directions may be necessary.

The liquidators of Intellicomms applied to the Court for relief in relation to a sale agreement entered into between Intellicomms and a related company for the sale of business assets, claiming it was a creditor-defeating disposition and a voidable transaction.

In a decision handed down by Brown J on 20 May 2022 in Michaela Manicaros v Commercial Images (Aust) Pty Ltd [2022] QSC 83, the Queensland Supreme Court provided useful guidance on when a liquidator may recover their legal costs of a remuneration application from a creditor objecting to the application (Objector).

In the matter of Mediacloud Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) [2021] NSWSC 357 the New South Wales Supreme Court demonstrated its wide discretionary power. The decision extended the period of administration of a company to avoid it being automatically wound up for failing to execute a deed of company arrangement within the required time. This, in effect, permitted the administrators to ‘re-do’ a second meeting of creditors, enabling the creditors to decide the company’s future again.

Liquidators generally have the power to assign causes of action belonging to a company, or claims conferred on the liquidator by the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act). However, a liquidator’s power to sell or assign causes of action has certain limitations which were considered in Anderson v Canaccord Genuity Financial Limited [2022] NSWSC 58 (Anderson Judgment).

In Re Nicolas Critini Pty Ltd (in Liquidation) [2022] NSWSC 1149, the New South Wales Supreme Court confirmed that a statutory debt for a disputed progress claim does not crystalise under SOPA’s^[1] distinct 'pay now, argue later' process until an adjudication determination is delivered.

The amendments follow the recent high profile decision in The Australian Sawmilling Company Pty Ltd (in liq) & Ors v EPA & Anor [2021] VSCA 294 (TASCO Judgment). Insolvency practitioners should be aware that the amendments are aimed at preventing liquidators from disclaiming liability for environmental clean-up costs.

TASCO Judgment

The Victorian Government has passed the Local Government Legislation Amendment (Rating and Other Matters) Act 2022 (Act), making a number of amendments including a particular focus on ratepayers experiencing hardship and improving the way rates are collected.

The Supreme Court of Victoria is the first Australian court to test creditor-defeating disposition laws designed to defeat illegal phoenix activity: In this latest article, Maddocks Insolvency & Restructuring team unpack illegal phoenix activity, summarise the key takeaways from the recent case Re Intellicomms Pty Ltd (in liq) [2022] VSC 228 (Re Intellicomms), and consider implications for insolvency practitioners, companies and directors.

What is phoenix activity and why is it illegal?