On 5 October 2011 Justice Barrett of the Supreme Court of NSW handed down a decision in Centro Retail Limited and Centro MCS Manager Limited in its capacity as Responsible Entity of the Centro Retail Trust [2011] NSWSC 1175 (“Centro”) where he found that the responsible entity of Centro Retail Trust would be justified in modifying the constitution of the trust without unitholder approval to a insert a provision permitting the issue of units at a price different to that provided for by the pre-existing provisions.

In the case of Anchorage Capital Master Offshore Ltd v Sparkes (No 3); Bank of Communications Co Ltd v Sparkes (No 2) [2021] NSWSC 1025 (Anchorage v Sparkes), the Supreme Court of NSW considered the obligations of company officers to sophisticated commercial lending entities, and whether company officers could be personally liable for making misleading statements.

Significance

The proposed scaling back of directors' liability provisions is good news for insolvency practitioners.

In good news for insolvency practitioners, the NSW Government formally adopted the Council of Australian Governments guidelines on "Personal Liability for Corporate Fault" as NSW policy on 31 July 2012 .

What are the "Personal Liability for Corporate Fault" guidelines?

A particular focus of the inquiry will be the consequences of such insolvencies for sub-contractors.

In the wake of a recent spate of contractors becoming insolvent, the NSW Government has announced an inquiry into insolvency in the construction industry and is seeking submissions from interested parties. Submissions to the inquiry are due by 14 September 2012.

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…

The law of "shadow directors" means that a person who effectively controls a board of a company, even though that person is not a director, may find himself being legally classified as a director of the company. That carries with it the threat of legal liability for the company's insolvent trading debts in the event that the company goes into liquidation.

Accolade is a very useful illustration of how a court exercises its discretion when a financier's failure to register its security interests properly was inadvertent.

When will a court exercise its discretion to grant an extension of time for the registration of security interests on the Personal Property Securities Register (PPSR)? The NSW Supreme Court has given some guidance in In the matter of Accolade Wines Australia Limited and other companies [2016] NSWSC 1023, specifically regarding:

The decision in In the matter of Independent Contractor Services (Aust) could mean more reliance upon fair entitlements guarantee funding provided by the Commonwealth in relation to the liquidation of trading trusts.

Key Points:

While shareholders may only need to establish indirect market causation, there are still significant obstacles for establishing shareholder claims.

Do plaintiffs in a shareholder class action have to show they relied upon misleading or deceptive conduct, or is it enough that the market in general relied upon them, which then affected the share price?

Key Points:

Companies that have leasing as a small and irregular part of their overall business still must comply with the PPSA if their interests in leased goods are to be protected.