The Supreme Court of Victoria has recently given some guidance on when a secured creditor who is entitled to enforce a charge over "the whole, or substantially the whole of the company's property" can validly appoint a company administrator.

Before 1993, the question of whether a creditor of a corporation being wound up had received an unfair preference from that corporation was determined under section 122 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth). In 1993, a new Part 5.7B was inserted into the Corporations Act to deal with voidable transactions such as unfair preferences. Since then two lines of divergent judicial authority have developed:

This week’s TGIF is the first of a two-part series considering Commonwealth v Byrnes [2018] VSCA 41, the Victorian Court of Appeal’s decision on appeal from last year’s Re Amerind decision about the insolvency of corporate trustees.

This first part looks closely at what the Court of Appeal did – and did not – decide in relation to how receivers and liquidators should deal with property recovered pursuant to an insolvent corporate trustee’s right of indemnity.

Liquidators will generally be pretty happy if a court finds that a transaction was both an uncommercial transaction and an unfair preference and dismisses any defence. Unfortunately for the liquidator in Re Cyberduck Software Pty Ltd (In Liq) & Anor [2018] VSC 122 you can still fail.

In Cyberduck:

In Re Atwell & Co Pty Ltd (in liq) [2017] VSC 683, Justice Kennedy of the Supreme Court of Victoria considered the application of the ‘proportionality’ principle in determining liquidator remuneration.

The Victorian Court of Appeal delivered judgment in Re Amerind today and held that the priority regime in the Corporations Act applies to insolvent corporate trustees.

In an important decision for insolvency practitioners, the Victorian Court of Appeal today delivered judgment in Commonwealth of Australia v Byrnes and Hewitt in their capacity as joint and several receivers and managers of Amerind Pty Ltd (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (in liq) & Ors [2018] VSCA 41.

The Victorian Court of Appeal has handed down it’s decision on appeal from Re Amerind (receivers and managers apptd)(in liq) [2017] VSC 127; (2017) 320 FLR 118. The appeal judgment is now up on Austlii and can be read here: Commonwealth of Australia v Byrnes and Hewitt as receivers and managers of Amerind Pty Ltd (receivers and managers apptd)(in liq) [2018] VSCA 41.

The Bendigo and Adelaide Bank is progressing with loan recoveries against investors in Great Southern Plantations with an outstanding loan.

It has a head start in loan recoveries against the members of the class action (the Group Members) because in the settlement deed approved by Justice Croft on 11 December 2014 it states that each of the Group Members “acknowledges and admits their liability to the BEN Parties to pay the Loan Balance under their Loan Deed”.

This week’s TGIF considers the case of Lane (Trustee), in the matter of Lee (Bankrupt) v Commissioner of Taxation [2017] FCA 953, where the Federal Court considered whether the claims of ‘non trust’ creditors in a bankruptcy are to be treated differently than like creditors in a corporate insolvency.

BACKGROUND

In the recent Federal Course case of Lane (Trustee), in the matter of Lee (Bankrupt) v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [2017] FCA 953 (Lane v DCT), Justice Derrington provided an in-depth analysis of the principles relating to an insolvent trustee’s right of indemnity over trust assets.