Welcome to the latest edition of our National Insolvency & Reconstruction Quarterly Review for the period 1 January 2017 to 31 March 2017.
There has been a large amount of activity in our space over the last quarter and we outline a few of the developments in this edition. In particular, our team:
- Reviews the recent change to the definition of “relation-back day” as a part of the recent insolvency and bankruptcy reforms. Click here;
- Considers the recent decision in Western Australia of White v ACN 153 152 731 Pty Ltd (in liquidation)  WASC 52 and how this may effect the “good faith” defence to a voidable transaction claim pursuant to section 558FG of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). Click here;
- Looks at the decision of Re Forge Group Limited  FCA 170 and whether certain post-receivership assets are available to priority creditors. Click here;
- As a further examination of the recent insolvency and bankruptcy reforms, considers the ability of external administrators to assign their rights pursuant to the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). Click here;
- Provide an explanation of the key aspects of the judgment of Bathurst CJ in the Sakr Nominees appeal (Appeal) and provides practical guidance for dealing with remuneration approval applications in light of the Appeal. Click here;
- Reviews one of the more recent decision in the Queensland Nickel liquidation – the decision of the High Court in Palmer v Ayers and Ferguson v Ayres  HCA 5 concerning the constitutional validity of the power of liquidators to examine officers. Click here; and
- Examines the most recent PPSA decision in NFT Specialized Tower Cranes LLC v Machforce Pty Ltd (in liquidation) & ors  WASC 95) that confirms various perfection, priority and vesting rules as well as, again, confirms the interaction between section 267 of the PPSA and section 558FM of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). Click here.
Finally, as this edition was going to press the Federal Government announced exposure legislation concerning two very important aspects in the development of corporate insolvency – namely a ‘safe harbour” defence to directors who it is deemed have engaged in insolvent trading as well as the non-enforceability of “ipso facto” clauses (ie. termination events) in certain circumstances. We will provide further detail in our next edition but to see a link to the Ministers Announcement (and in turn the exposure legislation) please click here.
We hope you enjoy this edition.