The September issue of the Insolvency Law Journal published the following material: “Debt agreements under Australian bankruptcy law: A successful experiment?” – Mary Wyburn; “Out of the shadows? Clarifying the liability of secured creditors in workouts” – Brendan Fitzgerald; “Fruitful unfair preference actions – what’s a liquidator to do?” – Andrew Poulton; Recent Developments: “Penalties, directors’ duties and non-executive directors: Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Healey (No 2) (2011) 196 FCR 430” – Maria Nicolae and David Morrison; and Report from NZ: “Personal liability of directors for the debts of phoenix companies” – Lynne Taylor.
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.