In ACN 004 410 833 Ltd (formerly Arrium Limited) (in liq) v Michael Thomas Walton [2020] NSWCA 157, the NSW Court of Appeal clarified the scope of examination and production orders for investigative purposes in a potential shareholder class actions.

The case concerned shareholders of Arrium seeking to utilise the examination process under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) to effectively determine the viability of possible claims that could be brought against Arrium Ltd (in liq) (Arrium), its directors and auditor.

It is a concern for directors in charge of companies experiencing financial difficulty that they may fall foul of the provisions under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) regarding a director’s duty to prevent insolvent trading by a company.

The recent decision of the Federal Court of Australia in Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Sino Australia Oil and Gas Limited (prov liq apptd) [2016] FCA 42 serves as a timely reminder to insolvency practitioners to confirm that their appointment as voluntary administrators has been validly made in accordance with section 436A of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the Act).

Facts

The Federal Court of Australia in Kelly v Willmott Forests Ltd (in liquidation) (No 4) [2016] FCA 323 rejected an application for approval of settlement under s 33V of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), confirming that the Court’s role is akin to a ‘guardian’ for the group members.

Background

Failure to comply with a statutory demand can have serious consequences for a company. Failure to properly advise on a statutory demand can also have serious consequences for a solicitor. Dixon J, in Dual Homes Pty Ltd v Moores Legal Pty Ltd and Anor, provides a timely reminder of the consequences that can flow from a failure to take proper action in response to a statutory demand.

In March 2015, the High Court delivered its judgment in Grant Samuel & Ors v Fletcher & Ors[2015] HCA 8, and unanimously overturned the decision of the New South Wales Court of Appeal, in holding that liquidators cannot rely on the procedural court rules of a State or Territory, to extend the time within which to commence voidable transaction proceedings, under section 588FF(3)(a) of the Corporations Act 2001 (“the Act”).

HOW THE GAME UNFOLDED