The Supreme Court of Queensland decision of First Strategic Corporation Limited (In Liq) and Anor v Chan and Ors [2014] QSC 60 gives insolvency practitioners guidance as to what consideration can be taken into account when assessing the solvency of a company by the means and preparedness of someone to support the company.

Background

In our September 2013 Insolvency Update ‘The Early Bird Gets the Worm: Tax Office Recovers Debt Before Foreign Creditors’, we highlighted the decision of De Ackers (as joint foreign representative) v Saad Investments Company Limited; In the matter of Saad Investments Company Limited (in official liquidation) [2013] FCA 738 (Saad case).

The decision in White & Anor v Spiers Earthworks Pty Ltd (SE) & Anor has examined the vesting provisions contained within the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) (PPSA) and confirmed their effect where one party asserts to have an unperfected Security Interest at the time of an event of insolvency according to section 267 (2) of the PPSA.

Background

Stewart v ATCO Controls Pty Ltd (in Liq) [2014] HCA 15

The High Court has unanimously confirmed the position originally set out in In re Universal Distributing Co Ltd (In Liq) (1933) 48 CLR 171, finding that a secured creditor may not have the benefit of a fund created by a liquidator without the liquidator's costs and expenses of creating that fund first being met.

Impact of Apportionment

The High Court decision in Hunt & Hunt v. Mitchell Morgan Nominees Pty Ltd ((2013) HCA 10) highlights the impact of proportionate liability where it applies. In that case the High Court apportioned 87.5% of the liability to bankrupt fraudsters with only 12.5% of the liability being apportioned to the solicitors who had failed to protect the plaintiff from the fraud. Without the impact of apportionment Hunt & Hunt would have been liable severally for 100% of the loss.

Defects in statutory demands have regularly prevented creditors from obtaining winding up orders against debtor companies.

The recent decision in Poolrite Australia Pty Ltd (In Liq) v Structural Pools Aust Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 1100 (Poolrite) confirms the Courts’ inclination to facilitate the efficiency of the winding up process by disregarding technical deficiencies in statutory demands where no substantial injustice is caused.

Facts

The Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act) and the Corporations Regulations 2001 (Regulations) contain various rules regulating the lodgment of Proofs of Debt by creditors. Often Proofs of Debt are lodged by creditors to entitle them to vote at a second meeting of creditors convened by an Administrator under section 439A of the Act.

In many bankruptcies the trustee is without funds to undertake litigation for the benefit of the bankrupt estate. In some cases a creditor is willing to indemnify the trustee in respect of the costs of such litigation where there are strong prospects of a successful conclusion with sufficient funds realised to distribute a dividend to creditors.

In summary

The recent case of Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC) v Franklin (liquidator), in the matter of Walton Construction Pty Ltd (in liq) [2014] FCA 68 involved an action brought by the ASIC in order to remove the liquidators from the companies based upon a lack of independence and a breach of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act) through an alleged deficient Declaration of Relevant Relationships (DIRRI).