In a decision handed down on 11 February 2016, the High Court has confirmed that the State Supreme Courts have jurisdiction to grant relief to plaintiffs seeking to join insurers of insolvent or potentially insolvent defendants, and a declaration that the insurer is liable to indemnify the defendant. 

Introduction

In the recent case of Queensland Mining Corporation Ltd v Butmall Pty Ltd (in liq), the Court held that the liquidators' relationship with a major creditor of the company in liquidation (Butmall) did not per se amount to a conflict of interest. 

Butmall applied to have its liquidators removed as they were the auditors of its major creditor (QMC), against whom Butmall purported to have considerable counterclaims.

In March 2013, four portable gas turbines worth about AU$50m had been leased to Forge Group Power Pty Ltd (Forge) by GE International Inc (GE) as lessor.  In February 2014 and March 2014 Forge was placed in administration and liquidation respectively.

The sole role of ICS, the company at issue in the recent decision of the New South Wales Supreme Court in In the matter of Independent Contractor Services (Aust) Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (No 2) [2016] NSWSC 106, was to be the trustee of the similarly named ICS Trust.  Previous litigation had confirmed that the trust was not a sham and that all ICS's assets were trust assets.  In the present decision, the judge held that all expenses incurred by ICS were expenses incurred as trustee, and therefore ICS (and the liquidator) had a right to be indemnified for those e

This week’s TGIF considers the decision of Crowe-Maxwell v Frost [2016] NSWCA 46 in which the Court held that a liquidator did not discharge his onus of proving relevant transactions were unreasonable director-related transactions.

BACKGROUND

Failure to comply with a statutory demand can have serious consequences for a company. Failure to properly advise on a statutory demand can also have serious consequences for a solicitor. Dixon J, in Dual Homes Pty Ltd v Moores Legal Pty Ltd and Anor, provides a timely reminder of the consequences that can flow from a failure to take proper action in response to a statutory demand.

This week’s TGIF considers the recent decision of the Federal Court which concerned the proper distribution of sale proceeds and whether those proceeds comprised part of the “property of the company”

WHAT HAPPENED?

Bamboo Direct Pty Limited (Bamboo), a company engaged in the business of purchasing and importing solar hot water heaters and solar panels, was placed into liquidation on 11 July 2012.

Key Points:

Although they should always keep time-frames very much in mind, the decision in BKA Practice Co Pty Ltd gives liquidators greater scope to find all possible time-frames in which they have to work.

CGU Insurance Limited v Blakeley [2016] HCA 2

Background

The High Court recently heard an appeal brought by CGU Insurance from a decision in the Supreme Court of Victoria, challenging a declaration that CGU was liable to indemnify Akron Roads Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (“Akron”) in interrelated proceedings.

Victorian Supreme Court rules that the appointment of an administrator was invalid, void and of no effect because the directors did not genuinely believe the company was insolvent and appointed the administrator for an improper purpose.  

BACKGROUND