In Saraceni v ASIC [2013] FCAFC 42 the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia confirmed that it is not necessary for ASIC to provide potential examinees with an opportunity to be heard prior to authorising receivers to conduct examinations under s596A of the Corporations Act.

FACTS

The Federal Magistrates Court of Australia decision of Dubow v Official Receiver & Anor [2013] FMCA 217 confirms that the Court’s discretion to annul bankruptcy is limited.  Even if the discretion is enlivened, it appears that the Court will be reluctant to exercise its discretion where the bankruptcy has come about by the bankrupt’s own petition.

A Supreme Court decision has delivered a hefty blow to holders of HIH Holdings (NZ) convertible notes leaving them with little hope of recovering any of their investment.

In the recent decision of MSI (Holdings) Pty Ltd v Mainstreet International Group Ltd [2013] QCA 27, the Court of Appeal considered the meaning and application of sections 471B and 471C of the Corporations Act.

BACKGROUND

The decision involved receivers who were appointed to MSI (Holdings) Pty Ltd (receivers appointed) (in liquidation) (MSI) by Central Coast Projects Pty Ltd (Central Coast) pursuant to a charge it held over all property, assets and rights of MSI.

The recent Supreme Court of New South Wales decision of AMC Commercial Cleaning (NSW) Pty Ltd v Stephen Keith Coade & Anor; Rockcliffs Solicitors & IP Lawyers v Schon Condon as liquidator of AMC Commercial Cleaning (NSW) (No 2) [2013] NSWSC 332 confirms that a liquidator may be personally liable to pay costs where the liquidator initiates proceedings to claim funds for the company in liquidation.

The recent decision of Oswal, in the matter of Burrup Fertilisers Pty Ltd (Receivers and Managers Appointed) v Carson, McEvoy and Theobald (Receivers and Managers) (No 3) [2013] FCA 357 confirms that the Federal Court will not order an inquiry into the alleged misconduct of receivers and managers where the relevant events are matters of commercial judgment.

In the recent decision of Re Sports Alive Pty Ltd (in liquidation) [2013] VSC 69, the Supreme Court of Victoria dealt with questions referred to it by a liquidator in respect of segregated bank accounts which might either be available for costs and the general body of creditors or alternatively only for beneficiaries on whose behalf the trustee should have held funds.  It was accepted that the determination was essentially a question of fact, and in the face of ambiguous facts, the Court determined that the onus was on the beneficiaries and not the liquidator. 

Generally speaking, other than in limited prescribed situations, an insolvency practitioner can only be removed by Court order. Often applications are made for the removal because of a perceived bias, however these are not always successful, as was seen in Cote v Devine [2013] WASC 79, handed down last week. New reforms allowing creditors to resolve to remove insolvency practitioners without recourse to the Court have the potential to significantly affect this.

The recent Federal Court of Australia (Court) decision in CBA Corporate Services (NSW) Pty Ltd, in the matter of ZYX Learning Centres Ltd (receivers and managers appointed) (in liq) v Walker [2013] FCA 243 confirms that liquidators owe a heavy duty of disclosure to the court and that the materiality of facts to be disclosed is to be assessed on a case by case basis.

The recent Supreme Court of New South Wales decision in Re V & M Davidovic Pty Limited [2012] NSWSC 1598 clarifies where the directors of a company in receivership will be authorised to defend a winding up application and confirms that Courts will be reluctant to adjourn such applications in order to allow the directors to gather evidence of solvency.

The Facts