CGU Insurance Limited v Blakeley [2016] HCA 2

Background

The High Court recently heard an appeal brought by CGU Insurance from a decision in the Supreme Court of Victoria, challenging a declaration that CGU was liable to indemnify Akron Roads Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (“Akron”) in interrelated proceedings.

Executive summary

On 11 February 2016 the High Court delivered a unanimous judgment¹ which clears the path for liquidators and others to join insurers of defendants to proceedings, enabling the determination at the same trial as to whether an insurer has an obligation to indemnify defendants in respect of any liability that may be found against those defendants.

The Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria in Boz One Pty Ltd v McLellan¹ has recently confirmed that it will adopt a commercial approach to assessing the conduct of receivers. A private sale of charged assets will not necessarily breach s 420A of the Corporations Act 2001. A copy of the decision is available here.

Key Messages

A recent Victorian Supreme Court decision considered whether, in the context of liquidation, securing the indebtedness of a third party to avoid potential litigation exposure is an uncommercial transaction. The decision indicates that such a transaction will not necessarily be uncommercial and consequently voidable where the company receives a benefit in avoiding a potential exposure and the company's net position remains the same.

640 Elizabeth Street Pty Ltd (in liq) & Ors v Maxcon Pty Ltd [2015] VSC 22 confirms that the granting of security by a company to avoid a proceeding against a related company will not necessarily constitute an “uncommercial transaction”.

BACKGROUND

On 11 December 2014, Justice Croft of the Victorian Supreme Court delivered judgment approving the settlement of multiple class actions brought by investors in managed investment schemes operated by an entity of the agribusiness Great Southern Group in 2005 and 2006.

Introduction

A recent Victorian case has worrying implications for financiers and creditors.

A decision of the Victorian Court of Appeal in Vasudevan v Becon Constructions (Australia) Pty Ltd [2014] VSCA 14 has the potential to significantly broaden the power of a liquidator to attack a company transaction under section 588FDA of the Corporations Act 2001 (Act) where there are ‘indirect benefits’ to a director or close associate of a director of the company.

In Vasudevan v Becon Contructions (Australia) Pty Ltd [2014] VSCA 14, the Victorian Court of Appeal recently delivered a decision which has broadened the scope of an unreasonable director-related transaction under section 588FDA of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)(Act). Senior Associate, Elisabeth Pickthall and Associate, Stefano Calabretta discuss the case.

The facts

In Stewart v Atco Controls Pty Limited (in liquidation) [2014] HCA 15, the High Court confirmed the Universal Distributing principle that a liquidator is entitled to be paid his or her remuneration and expenses in realising assets in priority to a secured creditor.

BACKGROUND