It goes without saying that it is important for an insolvency practitioner to be independent and to be seen to be independent when accepting an appointment or continuing to act in an existing appointment. The recent Federal Court decision of ASIC v Franklin [2014] FCA 68 provides some welcome guidance on what this means in practice and also on the contents of a declaration of independence, relevant relationships and indemnities (commonly known as a “DIRRI”).
FACTS
In the case of Bosi Security Services Ltd v Wright [2013] WASC 431, in which the court granted an interlocutory injunction preventing the sale of land by receivers despite acknowledging that the applicants’ case under the Trade Practices Act and Australian Consumer Law was not a strong one and had obvious deficiencies.
Facts
In Willmott Growers Group Inc v Willmott Forests Limited (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (In Liquidation) [2013] HCA 51, the High Court has confirmed that a liquidator of a landlord company has the power to disclaim a lease. The effect of the disclaimer is to terminate the leasehold interest of the lessee.
FACTS
The recent Victorian Supreme Court decision of Le Roi Homestyle Cookies Pty Ltd (in liquidation) v Gemmell [2013] VSC 452 determined that a person who does not claim privilege when being publicly examined by a liquidator will not be allowed to avoid pleading and providing discovery in subsequent civil proceedings on the basis that complying may expose them to a civil penalty or criminal sanction.
Facts
The defendants were alleged former de facto and shadow directors of Le Roi Homestyle Pty Ltd.
The Federal Court decision of Crumpler (as liquidator and joint representative) of Global Tradewaves Ltd (a company registered in the British Virgin Islands) v Global Tradewaves (in liquidation), in the matter of Global Tradewaves Ltd (in liquidation)[2013] FCA 1127 provides an illustrative example of the way that cross border insolvency recognition can be used to aid a foreign administration.
Facts
BACKGROUND
The company P Hindle & Co Pty Ltd (WA) was placed in liquidation in 2008. Mr Huxtable was appointed as liquidator of the company (Liquidator). The Liquidator acted as chairperson at a meeting of creditors in late 2010 where 4 out of a potential 161 creditors attended.
After nearly 20 years, the long running Bell litigation is almost over, with the Supreme Court of Western Australia having approved the settlement between the liquidators of the Bell group of companies and the syndicate of banks involved in the litigation (Re Bell Group (In Liq); Ex Parte Antony Leslie John Wooding as Liquidator of the Bell Group Ltd (In Liq) [2013] WASC 409).
BACKGROUND
Section 560 of the Corporations Act provides that a person who loans money to a company in liquidation, for the purposes of making a payment towards employee wages and other employee benefits, will have the same right of priority as the employees would have had in the winding up of the company.
In the decision of Allied Express Transport Pty Ltd v Exalt Group Pty Ltd (Administrator Appointed) (No 2) [2013] FCA 477, Exalt Group Pty Ltd (Exalt) sought an adjournment of a winding up application under s440A(2) of the Corporations Act on the basis that the creditors had voted by a majority in favour of a resolution that Exalt enter into a DOCA.
The recent Federal Court of Australia (the Federal Court) decision of Ackers v Saad Investments Company Limited [2013] FCA 738 considered whether the Australian Commissioner of Taxation (the Commissioner) could collect part of an AUD $83,271,545.70 debt owed by Saad Investments Company Limited (in official liquidation) (Saad) from Saad’s Australian assets, before those assets were remitted to the Cayman Islands for distribution in Saad’s ‘foreign main proceeding’.
Facts