In the recent decision of Re Sports Alive Pty Ltd (in liquidation) [2013] VSC 69, the Supreme Court of Victoria dealt with questions referred to it by a liquidator in respect of segregated bank accounts which might either be available for costs and the general body of creditors or alternatively only for beneficiaries on whose behalf the trustee should have held funds.  It was accepted that the determination was essentially a question of fact, and in the face of ambiguous facts, the Court determined that the onus was on the beneficiaries and not the liquidator. 

Generally speaking, other than in limited prescribed situations, an insolvency practitioner can only be removed by Court order. Often applications are made for the removal because of a perceived bias, however these are not always successful, as was seen in Cote v Devine [2013] WASC 79, handed down last week. New reforms allowing creditors to resolve to remove insolvency practitioners without recourse to the Court have the potential to significantly affect this.

The recent New South Wales Supreme Court decision In re MF Global Australia Ltd (in liq) No 2 [2012] NSWSC 1426 confirmed that the remuneration, costs and expenses incurred by liquidators in preserving, recovering and realising trust assets should be paid out of the trust property generally, rather than being restricted to assets held on trust for the benefit of the company itself.

The recent New South Wales Supreme Court (Court) decision in In re MF Global Australia Ltd (in liq) No 2 [2012] NSWSC 1426 (23 November 2012) confirms that liquidators who properly incur costs and expenses in seeking court directions regarding the distribution of trust property and, in recovering such property, will generally be able to recover their relevant remuneration, costs and expenses from that trust property.

In August 2012 the NSW Government commissioned an Independent Inquiry into Construction Industry Insolvency. The Inquiry was asked to assess the causes and extent of insolvency in the building and construction industry and to recommend measures to better protect subcontractors from the effects of insolvency.

The recent decision of the Federal Court in Carter in the matter of Damilock Pty Ltd (Damilock) highlights the need for liquidators to review current practices when paying priority creditors (e.g. employee entitlements).

Facts

The plaintiffs were appointed as administrators of Damilock on 26 June 2007 and subsequently appointed as liquidators by creditors’ resolution at a meeting on 7 September 2007.

In the recent decision of Oswal v Burrup Fertilisers Pty Limited (Receivers and Managers Appointed) [2013] FCAFC 9, the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia recently confirmed that receivers and managers will be justified in refusing to allow a director access to books and records of the company where access may adversely impact on the realisation of the secured assets.

THE FACTS

In brief - Bill implements reforms proposed in options paper

Introduction

On 29 January 2013, the Federal Court of Australia made orders approving the creditors’ scheme of arrangement between Nine Entertainment Group Pty Limited (NEG) and its senior and mezzanine lenders (Nine Scheme).

The Nine Scheme, made under Part 5.1 of the Corporations Act, follows Alinta and Centro as the third debt for equity restructuring of a major Australian company in as many years.

The recent Supreme Court of New South Wales decision in Re V & M Davidovic Pty Limited [2012] NSWSC 1598 clarifies where the directors of a company in receivership will be authorised to defend a winding up application and confirms that Courts will be reluctant to adjourn such applications in order to allow the directors to gather evidence of solvency.

The Facts