This week’s TGIF considers the decision in the matter of Bias Boating Pty Ltd [2017] NSWSC 1524 which deals with leave to join already named defendants to a “mothership” proceeding after expiration of the limitation period

Background

The first plaintiff was appointed administrator of the second plaintiff (the relevant company) on 25 August 2014 and became its liquidator on 29 September 2014.

On 11 September 2014, the Supreme Court of NSW handed down its decision in Allco Funds Management Limited (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (In Liquidation) v Trust Company (RE Services) Limited (in its capacity as responsible entity and trustee of the Australian Wholesale Property Fund) [2014] NSWSC 1251.

The decision has highlighted the risks associated with the involvement of directors in transactions where they are in a position of conflict.

THE FACTS

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

The recent New South Wales Supreme Court (Court) decision in Plaza West Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (subject to a deed of company arrangement) [2013] NSWSC 168 involved an application to terminate the winding up of a company subject to a deed of company arrangement (DOCA) and emphasised the importance of comprehensive reports from the company’s administrators and experts, in deciding that application.

Background

This week’s TGIF considers the decision in Strawbridge (Administrator), in the matter of CBCH Group Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) (No 2) [2020] FCA 472 where the Federal Court made orders absolving the administrators of retailer Colette from personal liability for rent for a two week period, due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

This week’s TGIF considers Re GGA Lifestyle Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed); Ex Parte Woodhouse [2019] WASC 167, where the Supreme Court of Western Australia clarified that a voluntary administrator of a company in administration is able to claim costs of care, preservation and realisation of partnership assets of the company in administration through an equitable lien in the same way liquidators can.

What happened?

This week’s TGIF considers the decision of Simpson & Anor v Tropical Hire Pty Ltd (in liq) [2017] QCA 274 in which the Queensland Court of Appeal considered whether a disposition of property by a company after the commencement of its winding up was void

BACKGROUND

Mr Simpson was the sole director and shareholder of Tropical Hire Pty Ltd (company). It had operated a successful business until that business was sold in 2009. After the sale, the company did not trade.

In Sharpe v WH Bailey & Sons Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 921, Justice Gleeson found that the Farm Debt Mediation Act 1994 (NSW) (FDM Act) did not operate to prevent an individual from pursuing their rights under the Bankruptcy Act1966 (Cth), even though those rights may have been related to a farm mortgage.  In doing so, Justice Gleeson confirmed that the Bankruptcy Act1966 (Cth) will have priority over the FDM Act where the requirements of section 5 of the FDM Act are met.

FACTS

The decision of the Queensland Supreme Court (Court) in International Cat Manufacturing Pty Ltd (in liq) & Anor v Rodrick & Ors [2013] QSC 307 is a reminder that liquidators who commence proceedings may be personally liable for costs of the proceeding where they are unsuccessful in their claim.

FACTS

The Facts

In this case the liquidators of Octaviar Administration had obtained an extension to the time for them to bring voidable transaction proceedings under section 588FF(1) of the Corporations Act (Extension Order). Before the expiration of the Extension Order, the liquidators sought a further extension under s588FF(3)(b) or, alternatively, asked the Court to vary the date in the Extension Order pursuant to the Court’s procedural powers under r 36.16 of Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) (UCPR).