The Bottom Line:

While some fans of the Cleveland Indians have long complained about the frugality of owner Paul Dolan, at least Mr. Dolan has never had trouble making payroll. In perhaps the biggest event to occur off the field since Walter O'Malley moved the team from Brooklyn, the Los Angeles Dodgers filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware on June 27, 2011.

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.

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?

Our clients must be sick to death about hearing us comment on the Australian Sons of Gwalia saga (which we have been doing for more than three years) but finally there is good news to report. The short version of the saga is thatSons of Gwalia was a decision by Australia's highest court that shareholder damages claims should be treated as pari passu unsecured claims in an Australian insolvency proceeding.

Introduction

On 26 November 2010, the Federal Parliament passed the Corporations Amendment (Sons of Gwalia) Bill 2010 (“Bill”). The Bill amends section 563A of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (“Act”) such that any claim brought by a person against a company that arises from the buying, selling, holding or other dealing with a shareholding will be postponed in an external administration until all other claims have been paid. The Bill has the effect of reversing the High Court decision of Sons of Gwalia v Margaretic [2007] HCA 1.

The Government has passed amendments to the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and the Corporations Regulations 2001 (Regulations) to overturn the impact of the decision in Sons of Gwalia v Margaretic (2007) 231 CLR 160 (Sons of Gwalia) and reinstate the longheld convention that creditors’ rights take precedence over shareholders’ rights in the instance of a winding up.

What was the outcome of Sons of Gwalia?

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 Government has reintroduced the Corporations Amendment (Sons of Gwalia) Bill 2010 into Parliament to give effect to the Government's decision to reverse the High Court's decision in Sons of Gwalia v Margaretic.

We have been sending Client Updates since 2007 concerning the decision of the Australian High (Supreme) Court in Sons of Gwalia Ltd v Margaretic. Specifically, the High Court held that the damages claims of shareholders of insolvent companies for fraud and misrepresentation should be treated pari passu with the claims of all other unsecured creditors, rather than being treated as subordinated to unsecured claims as is the case in the U.S.