In a much anticipated judgment, the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of NSW has delivered good news for insolvency practitioners concerning their remuneration. This news will be particularly welcome for those practitioners who accept appointments over small to medium sized companies.
WHO SHOULD READ THIS
- Insolvency practitioners, mortgagees or other secured creditors and their advisors.
THINGS YOU NEED TO KNOW
- Whilst the foreign resident capital gains withholding provisions (FRCGW) contain insolvency exceptions that exclude most asset disposal transactions undertaken in the insolvency area, it is important to recognise that not all insolvency transactions are excluded. Transactions by a mortgagee in possession may not be excluded.
WHAT YOU NEED TO DO
This week’s TGIF considers a decision of the Victorian Supreme Court which examined the merits of appointing special purpose liquidators in circumstances where a creditor was only willing to fund investigations if the appointment was made.
What happened?
In May and June 2016, two registered education and training organisations (together, the RTOs) were placed into liquidation.
The New South Wales Supreme Court of Appeal's decision in Sanderson as Liquidator of Sakr Nominees [1] has given cause for optimism amongst insolvency practitioners. The decision confirms that the correct approach was taken by the Court inIdylic Solutions [2], bucking a trend in recent years of limiting or reducing practitioner remuneration by reference to a proportion of the funds recovered.
WHO SHOULD READ THIS
- Restructuring and insolvency professionals.
THINGS YOU NEED TO KNOW
- Understanding liabilities from a payroll tax perspective can be complex, particularly due to the broad nature of the grouping provisions.
- Unless care is taken situations may arise where restructuring and insolvency professionals will be grouped with client entities, potentially exposing personal entities to joint and several liability for client entity debts.
WHAT YOU NEED TO DO
A spate of recent decisions approving liquidators’ remuneration on an ad valorembasis had caused some trepidation amongst insolvency practitioners facing the prospect of court fee approval.
Court of Appeal sets the record straight
The key point
On March 9, 2017, a full bench of the New South Wales Court of Appeal handed down a significant decision affecting approach to judicial review and approval of liquidator remuneration. Significantly, existing tension between decisions of different judges at first instance, and between NSW and Federal courts, has been resolved.
Introduction
In November 2016, the High Court of Australia heard a challenge brought by Clive Palmer in respect of the constitutional validity of the power of a liquidator to examine a former director of a company before the court. At the conclusion of that hearing, Kiefel J, as her Honour then was, stated that the Court was unanimously of the view that the challenge had failed and that reasons would be published later. Yesterday the High Court published those reasons.
The proceedings
This week’s TGIF considers In the matter of ACN 151 726 224 Pty Ltd (in liq) [2016] NSWSC 1801, where the Court dismissed a creditor’s application to remove liquidators who had refused to conduct public examinations of a director.
What happened?
On 18 November 2015, the District Court of New South Wales entered judgment against Ridley Capital Holdings Pty Limited (the Company) in the amount of $660,862.62.