The Supreme Court of New South Wales has recently handed down its decision in proceedings (“Arrium Proceedings”) brought by a number of lenders against former officers and employees of Arrium Limited and its subsidiaries (“Arrium”).
Introduction
Justice Ball’s landmark decision1 dismissing the lenders’ claims addressed various important issues that often arise when a borrower is facing financial distress in Australia, including:
This week’s TGIF considers a recent decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Re Antqip Pty Ltd (in liq) [2021] NSWSC 1122, concerning whether section 588FL of the Corporations Act2001 (Cth) applied to vest a security interest in the company that was granted after the ‘critical time’.
Key Takeaways
In a substantial recent decision arising from the Arrium liquidation[1], the Supreme Court of New South Wales considered the materiality of significant future liabilities in assessing the company’s solvency.
In brief - Malvern Developments successfully applies to have creditor's statutory demand set aside, satisfying Supreme Court of a genuine offset claim
A recent case handed down in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Re Western Port Holdings Pty Ltd (rec and mgr apptd) (in liq) (2021) 39 ACLC ¶21-016; [2021] NSWSC 232, concerned the recoverability of payments as unfair preferences pursuant to Pt
In the recent case of Re Hydrodec Group Plc [2021] NSWSC 755 (Hydrodec) the Supreme Court of New South Wales (NSW Supreme Court or Court) rejected an application by a non-operating holding company, Hydrodec Group Plc (the Company), for recognition of its United Kingdom (UK) debtor-in-possession Part A1 moratorium process (Part A1 Moratorium) and relief from a winding up application being made against the Company in Australia.
In the recent litigation involving Henclo Investments Pty Ltd (Henclo), the NSW Supreme Court confirmed that non-payment of a debt cannot be relied upon as evidence of insolvency if a winding-up application is filed on grounds other than failure to comply with a creditor’s statutory demand.
Background
In ACN 004 410 833 Ltd (formerly Arrium Limited) (in liq) v Michael Thomas Walton & anor,[1] the New South Wales Court of Appeal considered the purpose for which public examination summons and production of documents can be ordered.
In the wake of the Victorian Court of Appeal’s decision in Cant v Mad Brothers Earthmoving [2020] VSCA 198 (‘Cant’), the Supreme Court of New South Wales’ recent decision in Re Western Port Holdings provides further encouragement for liquidators to pursue unfair preference claims with respect to third party payments and payments made during the operation of a deed of company arrangement (DOCA).
Key takeaways