Nick - if insolvency law in AU is broadly the same as in the UK,...

Nick - if insolvency law in AU is broadly the same as in the UK, when the directors believe a company is insolvent they must consider the best way or ways to maximise stakeholder value and either appoint a licensed insolvency practitioner to take over the running of the company with a view to disposing of the company's assets from a trading position (which often yields the best result), or they may decide to take steps to have the company placed in liquidation, whereafter a liquidator will realise the assets and distribute the proceeds in the order required by law.

The directors will invariably take independent expert advice on all this before deciding which is the best route to take and secured lenders (where their interests are material) are invariably involved in the discussion process. If the directors were to decide to start realising assets or paying certain creditors before others outside formal insolvency arrangements, they would be personally liable for any subsequently discovered breaches of insolvency law. Ditto if they were to allow the company to continue to trade when they knew - or should have known - the company would be unable to pay its debts as they fell due for payment.

Like you, I don't think the secured lenders are bluffing. The balance of probability is it's a 'yes' vote or curtains. I genuinely don't think they'll much care one way or the other. SGH's future is at best very uncertain - the brand has been holed somewhere that's at least close to the waterline imv. Would you appoint them

this year or next​

on a big case likely to last years, if the company's still trading next month?