In a recent Supreme Court of Victoria decision[1] in which we acted for the successful liquidators, the Court made various orders to enable the company to complete an ultra-efficient, streamlined second voluntary administration to expedite creditor consideration of a new DOCA proposal.
Key points
The recent Federal Court decision in Diversa Pty Ltd v Taiping Trustees Limited has highlighted some important risks faced by secured parties who don’t pay attention to the details when perfecting, and maintaining perfection of, their security.
The recent Federal Court decision in Diversa Pty Ltd v Taiping Trustees Limited has highlighted some important risks faced by secured parties who don’t pay attention to the details when perfecting, and maintaining perfection of, their security. Those risks include:
Morton as Liquidator of MJ Woodman Electrical Contractors Pty Ltd v Metal Manufacturers Pty Limited [2021] FCAFC 228.
In a resounding judgment delivered last week, the Full Federal Court has confirmed that a statutory set-off under section 533C is not available to a defendant in unfair preference proceedings.
Key Takeaways
The Australian Sawmilling Co Pty Ltd (in liq) v Environment Protection Authority [2021] VSCA 294
The Victorian Court of Appeal’s decision in The Australian Sawmilling Co Pty Ltd (in liq) v Environment Protection Authority [2021] VSCA 294 casts significant doubt on liquidators’ capacity to rely upon section 568 of the Corporations Act to disclaim environmental liabilities, despite the absence of any involvement of the liquidator in the creation of those liabilities.
In a substantial recent decision arising from the Arrium liquidation[1], the Supreme Court of New South Wales considered the materiality of significant future liabilities in assessing the company’s solvency.
A hotly anticipated decision in the ongoing saga of the Babcock & Brown liquidation was handed down last week, resulting in another win for the liquidator (represented by Johnson Winter & Slattery) and further highlighting the challenges facing liquidators when they are thrust into a quasi-judicial function when assessing proofs of debt.
Introduction
In the wake of the Victorian Court of Appeal’s decision in Cant v Mad Brothers Earthmoving [2020] VSCA 198 (‘Cant’), the Supreme Court of New South Wales’ recent decision in Re Western Port Holdings provides further encouragement for liquidators to pursue unfair preference claims with respect to third party payments and payments made during the operation of a deed of company arrangement (DOCA).
Key takeaways
Times are changing rapidly with the current flow of Coronavirus measures introduced to support businesses in debt and distress.
We take a look at what creditors can (and can’t) do to help better protect their position.
I’m owed money. What can I do?
Certain recent government measures may impede your ability to take recovery or enforcement action at the present time. The good news is that many avenues remain available.
You cannot (in some cases):
In a recent decision in the Supreme Court of NSW[1], Rees J set aside a liquidator’s bid to publicly examine two senior officers of the National Rugby League (NRL), finding that examination summonses issued by the liquidator were an abuse of process and the entire liquidation process was a contrivance in order to exert commercial pressure on the NRL.