The recent Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia decision of Templeton v Australian Securities and Investment Commission [2015] FCAFC 137 has considered the application of 'proportionality' in determining receivers' remuneration.

What do you do when a company owes you money? Or a creditor issues a statutory demand on your company?

This article discusses what a statutory demand is and the risks and benefits of issuing a statutory demand to recover your money.

In a recent decision of the High Court of Australia (which is the highest appellate court in Australia), a freezing order in respect of a prospective foreign judgment has been unanimously upheld.

This is a significant decision as the High Court has confirmed the validity of prospective freezing orders, a point previously the subject of some uncertainty in Australia, thereby greatly improving the position of parties seeking security in Australia in respect of foreign proceedings.

Background

Before commencing winding up proceedings against a debtor company, it is very common for a creditor to serve a creditor's statutory demand for payment of a debt ("statutory demand"). After spending time and effort preparing a statutory demand, it is crucial that the statutory demand is served properly on the debtor company. If it is not served properly, the statutory demand may be set aside and cost you money.

In a previous article, we addressed some of the pitfalls of drafting subpoenas and provided some tips and tricks for the drafting of subpoenas (see “The Pitfalls of Subpoenas”). Since that article, the NSW Court of Appeal has addressed the issue again with a timely warning to insurers that improperly drafted subpoenas will be set aside, in whole or in part.

Introduction

The Full Court of the Federal Court has given some important guidance on the calculation of remuneration for court appointed receivers.  In its decision in Templeton v Australian Securities and Investment Commission the Court has highlighted the importance of proportionality in determining reasonable remuneration.

General Position

Hudson v Signalla [2015] FCAFC 140 confirms that leave of the court is not required under s58(3) Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) to sue a former bankrupt in respect of what was a provable debt in the bankruptcy, after an annulment of the bankruptcy by way of a composition under ss73 and 74 of the Bankrupcty Act.

BACKGROUND

A bankrupt had his bankruptcy annulled by way of presentation of a composition that was accepted by participating creditors (Composition). 

The Corporations Act (the Act) permits a liquidator to claw back preferential payments made to an unsecured creditor within the six (6) month period prior to the winding up: section 588FA of the Act.

Update on McCabes' article " 'Are we there yet' - When are proceedings over for the purposes of enforcement"

The High Court of Australia has refused an application for special leave to appeal the decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia in Sarks v Cassegrain [2015] FCAFC 38, confirming that a judgment issued by the Court on the basis of filing of a certificate of costs assessment is a "final judgment" for the purposes of s 40(1)(g) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) and can therefore ground a bankruptcy notice.

Federal Court confirms the ATO cannot issue garnishee notices to a company being wound up to collect post-liquidation tax liabilities.