The latest Part of C&SLJ includes the following material: “Injunctions and damages under s 1324 of the Corporations Act: Will McCracken v Phoenix Constructions revive the narrow approach?” – Victoria Schnure Baumfield; “Kumarina and bidders voting in transfer schemes” – JS Humphrey; ” “Unashamedly more interventionist” courts and the fading significance of a director’s state of mind” – Kane Loxley; and Overseas Notes: Hong Kong, Singapore and Malaysia: “Corporate social responsibilities in the context of Confucianism” – Charles Lam and SH Goo.
The first Part of Volume 21 of the Insolvency Law Journal includes three interesting articles on different aspects of insolvency law. The first is by Amanda-Jayne Bull, who argues that distinctions remain relevant with regard to receivership and the PPSA. The second article comes from Brad Strahorn and looks at the nature of corporate insolvency practitioner liens. The final article is by Mark Wellard and analyses the inconsistent approaches taken by courts when interpreting provisions of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) which address debts or expenses “incurred” by receivers, administrators and liquidators. There is also a Recent Developments section and a Report from New Zealand.
By Patrick J Lewis. The decision in Hall v Poolman examined liability for decisions made in times of financial hardship. In the wake of the global financial crisis, directors and executives have to meet numerous challenges which were not present when the insolvent trading provisions were last the subject of debate.
By Associate Professor Anil Hargovan The recent decision by the Federal Court in McLellan, in the matter of The Stake Man Pty Ltd v Carroll  FCA 1415 (hereinafter Stake Man) excused a director from liability for insolvent trading based on statutory considerations concerning, inter alia, honesty and fairness under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).
By Tina Hoyer. One of the main elements to be established by a liquidator in order to successfully challenge a pre-liquidation transaction known as an unfair preference is contained in s 588FA(1)(b) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). It was foreshadowed that the enactment of s 588FA would cause no fundamental change to the law with respect to unfair preferences. However, this article will demonstrate that there have been subtle, yet significant, changes to the way the court deals with unfair preferences since the enactment of s 588FA.