In Lafferty v Official Assignee Gordon J considered Mr Lafferty's appeal of two decisions of the Official Assignee to refuse Mr Lafferty's applications under section 62(1)(a) of the Insolvency Act 1967 to enter or carry on business while bankrupt.

Gordon J dismissed the appeal on the basis that Mr Lafferty could not show that the Official Assignee had made an error of law, failed to take into account relevant considerations or was manifestly wrong in exercising its discretion under regulation 34 of the Insolvency Regulations 1970.

In Official Assignee in Bankruptcy of the Property of Cooksley, in the matter of Cooksley v Cooksley, the Federal Court of Australia was asked to consider a letter of request from the New Zealand High Court for assistance under the Bankruptcy Act 1996 (Cth) and the Foreign Insolvency Act 2008 (Cth). By the letter of request from the High Court, the New Zealand Official Assignee sought assistance to enforce income contributions by a New Zealand bankrupt resident in Australia.

Ranolf Company Limited (Ranolf) was created for the sole purpose of acting as a trustee of the Ranolf Trust (Trust). This was the only activity Ranolf performed and its only asset was its right of recourse to the Trust assets under indemnity.

Ranolf was put into liquidation in 2014. Earlier this year, Ranolf brought this proceeding in the High Court seeking various orders to enable it to recourse to the Trust property to meet the claims of its creditors and its liquidators' costs.

The liquidators of Marathon Imaging Limited (Marathon) brought a claim against the company's director, Mr Greenhill, for a prejudicial disposition of property under section 346 of the Property Law Act 2007 and a breach of director's duties under the Companies Act 1993.  Marathon had begun defaulting on its tax commitments from 2008 onwards and became insolvent shortly after.  The Greenhill Family Trust (Trust), a secured creditor of Marathon, appointed receivers and the Commissioner of Inland Revenue had Marathon placed into liquidation just three days later.

The liquidators of two Cayman Island companies obtained orders under s 195(3) of the Bermudan Companies Act 1981 for PwC, as the companies' auditor, to provide information and documents to the liquidators. PwC decided to appeal but, in the meantime, did US$250,000 of preparatory work necessary to enable compliance, if required, with the orders.

As a result of the appeal, both orders were set aside. In PricewaterhouseCoopers v SAAD Investments Co Ltd & Anor (Bermuda) PwC applied to recover from the liquidators the costs of preparing to comply with the orders.

In CGES Limited (in liquidation and receivership) v Kelly [2016] NZHC 1465, the liquidator of CGES Limited brought claims against the former directors of the company for breaches of duties owed to the company.  The High Court held:

The Supreme Court has recently denied leave to appeal a judgment concerning the application of the continuing business relationship to voidable transactions under section 292(4B) of the Companies Act 1993.

In Madsen-Ries and Vance v Petera the High Court found that the directors of Petranz Limited (in liquidation) had breached certain directors' duties under the Companies Act and, as a consequence, were liable to pay compensation to the Company.  In particular, the directors failed to keep proper financial records and produce financial statements.

In our September 2012 insolvency update, we reported on Re Willmott Forests Ltd [2012] VSC 29, where the Victorian Court of Appeal found that a leasehold interest in land is extinguished by a liquidator's disclaimer of the lease pursuant to section 568(1) of the Australian Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

The High Court recently granted an application for an exemption from the requirement to send the liquidator's six monthly report to every preference shareholder of the company in liquidation. In FCS Loans Ltd (in liq) v Fisk & Anor, the High Court granted the liquidators' application for an exemption on the basis that the cost of supplying six monthly reports to the 3,141 preference shareholders (estimated to be $4,719.16) is not proportionate to any likely benefit to those shareholders from having the reports mailed to them.