Defects in statutory demands have regularly prevented creditors from obtaining winding up orders against debtor companies.

The recent decision in Poolrite Australia Pty Ltd (In Liq) v Structural Pools Aust Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 1100 (Poolrite) confirms the Courts’ inclination to facilitate the efficiency of the winding up process by disregarding technical deficiencies in statutory demands where no substantial injustice is caused.

Facts

The Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act) and the Corporations Regulations 2001 (Regulations) contain various rules regulating the lodgment of Proofs of Debt by creditors. Often Proofs of Debt are lodged by creditors to entitle them to vote at a second meeting of creditors convened by an Administrator under section 439A of the Act.

In many bankruptcies the trustee is without funds to undertake litigation for the benefit of the bankrupt estate. In some cases a creditor is willing to indemnify the trustee in respect of the costs of such litigation where there are strong prospects of a successful conclusion with sufficient funds realised to distribute a dividend to creditors.

In the recent Victorian Supreme Court decision of Central Cleaning Supplies (Aust) Pty Ltd v Elkerton and Young (in their capacity as joint and several liquidators of Swan Services Pty Ltd (in liquidation))[1], the Supreme Court considered the issue of whether the Plaintiff's credit application signed by Swan Services Pty Ltd (Swan Services) before 30 January 2012 was a 'transitional security agreement' within the meaning of that term in the Personal Property Securities Act

Our Insolvency Update of 3 March 2014 refers to the Federal Court’s decision in Australian Building Systems Pty Ltd (in liq) v Commissioner of Taxation . The court held that liquidators and receivers and managers cannot be held personally liable for any CGT liability subsequently assessed as due (where funds are remitted in the ordinary course and to secured creditors before the Commissioner of Taxation issues the assessment). 

In the decision of JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association v Fletcher; Grant Samuel Corporate Finance Pty Limited v Fletcher [2014] NSWCA 31, the Court of Appeal of New South Wales confirmed that liquidators may apply under rule 36.16(2)(b) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) (UCPR) to further extend the time within which they may bring voidable transactions proceedings.  We considered the first instance judgment in a

This case serves as an important reminder that board appointments should not be taken lightly - even as a “personal favour”.  Directors should ensure that they are sufficiently abreast of the affairs of their companies and actively involved in their management.  An argument that a director was “not really involved” in management is unlikely to find favour when the company finds itself in strife.

On 21 February 2014, the Federal Court handed down its decision inAustralian Building Systems Pty Limited v Commissioner of Taxation [2014] FCA 116 (Australian Building Systems). The Court found that a liquidator was not legally required to retain an amount out of the proceeds on disposal of assets as part of the winding up of a company to pay tax which is or will become due in respect of a capital gain.

The Victorian Court of Appeal recently held that a payment, disposition or grant of security by a company to a person on behalf of, or for the benefit of a director of the company, extends to a mortgage of land given by the company to a creditor of the director in consideration of a covenant by the creditor not to sue the director. 

As a result, insolvency practitioners now have stronger judicial guidance as to what constitutes a 'benefit' for the purposes of setting aside or varying voidable transactions, which should assist in recovering proceeds for unsecured creditors.

It is common for liquidators (and all of us working in the insolvency industry) to work with a few firms or individuals and for referrals to predominantly be distributed amongst those. In the recent decision in Re Walton Construction Pty Ltd (In Liq); ASIC V Franklin [2014] FCA 68, the Federal Court considered when that relationship might amount to a conflict.