This week’s TGIF considers In the matter of Blue Sennar Air Pty Ltd (in liq); In the matter of Eye Plantain Pty Ltd (in liq) [2016] NSWSC 772 in which the Court clarified the rights of a liquidator to disclaim “unprofitable contracts” pursuant to section 568(1A) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).
WHAT HAPPENED?
On 14 May 2015, the defendant liquidator was appointed administrator of Eye Plantain Pty Ltd (Eye Plantain). He became liquidator of Eye Plantain shortly thereafter.
This week’s TGIF considers the decision of Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Currey in which the Court looks at whether a breach of clause 25.1 of the Code of Banking Practice renders a guarantee void or voidable.
BACKGROUND
A bank lent money to a family company, which was secured by personal guarantees provided by the applicants.
BACKGROUND
This week’s TGIF examines the recent changes to Australia’s insolvency regime, the potential implications for business and considerations for creditors in light of the impact from COVID-19.
The Australian Government has now passed theCoronavirus Economic Response Package Omnibus Bill 2020. The bill was fast-tracked through both houses of parliament with bipartisan support on 23 March 2020 and makes significant changes to Australia’s insolvency regime over the next six months.
What happened?
This week’s TGIF considers the Federal Court’s decision of In the matter of Boka Beverages Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) [2019] FCA 1184, regarding an application for the appointment of special purpose liquidators.
What happened?
This week’s TGIF considers the recent case of Halifax Investment Services Pty Ltd (In liquidation) (No 4) [2019] FCA 604 where the Federal Court granted an application by liquidators of a company to electronically publish notices required to be sent to creditors as part of their initial reporting obligations in a winding up, to save costs and time, in cir
How far do liquidators’ powers to demand documents for public examinations extend? Which documents can they request and from whom can they request them?
In this week’s TGIF, we consider these questions in the context of the recent case of Re Cathro [2018] FCA 1138.
BACKGROUND
This week’s TGIF considers the Victorian Court of Appeal’s decision in Blakeley v CGU Insurance Ltd [2017] VSCA 378, which confirms the rights of third parties to seek direct access to proceeds of insurance.
The decision confirms that, in certain circumstances, third party creditors can commence proceedings against a defendant and also join the defendant’s insurers to those proceedings.
This week’s TGIF examines a recent decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales which considered whether payments made by a third party to a company’s creditors could be recovered as unfair preferences.
What happened?
On 2 September 2015, liquidators were appointed to a building and construction company (the Company) and later commenced proceedings against eight defendants for the recovery of payments considered to be unfair preferences.
This week’s TGIF considers Tai-Soo Suk v Hanjin Shopping Co Ltd [2016] FCA 1404 in which the Court was required to determine the scope of a stay arising under the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross Border Insolvency.
BACKGROUND
A Korean shipping company was subject to ‘rehabilitation’ proceedings in Korea. Rehabilitation proceedings seek to ‘rehabilitate’ insolvent debtors by restructuring their debt pursuant to a rehabilitation plan approved by the creditors and the Rehabilitation Court.