This week’s TGIF article considers the case of Kelly, in the matter of Halifax Investment Services Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (No 5) [2019] FCA 1341, in which liquidators of two linked investment companies in Australia and New Zealand sought to hold concurrent hearings in the Federal Court and in the High Court of New Zealand.
What happened?
This week’s TGIF considers a recent decision of the Victorian Court of Appeal where a company’s creditors successfully opposed an application by the company’s liquidators to compromise proceedings commenced on the company’s behalf.
This week’s TGIF considers the process that a liquidator may follow when a director fails to attend at an examination. It considers the appeal in Mensink v Parbery [2018] FCAFC 101, in which the Court set out the relevant differences between arrest warrants issued to require a director to attend an examination, and arrest warrants to answer charges for contempt.
What happened?
In September 2017, the Commonwealth Parliament passed the Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Enterprise Incentives No. 2) Act 2017 (Cth) to amend and reform the insolvency and external administration provisions of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).
One of the main changes implemented by these reforms was the introduction of a ‘safe harbour’ protection for company directors.
In June 2017, the New South Wales Parliament introduced the Civil Liability (Third Party Claims Against Insurers) Act 2017 (NSW Act), designed to clarify the rights of claimants to proceed directly against insurance companies. But in the context of insolvent corporations, has it created more problems than it has solved?
This week’s TGIF considers Linc Energy Ltd (in Liq) v Chief Executive Dept of Environment & Heritage Protection [2017] QSC 53, in which the Queensland Supreme Court directed that the liquidators of Linc Energy were not justified in causing it to fail to comply with an environmental protection order
BACKGROUND
This week’s TGIF considers a recent decision in which the Court directed that liquidators would be justified in utilising trust funds to conduct further investigations to identify and pursue potential claims available to a trustee.
WHAT HAPPENED?
The plaintiffs were appointed as voluntary administrators of the trustee company (Trustee) and subsequently became its liquidators. The Trustee acted as responsible entity and trustee within a corporate group that funded property investment and development activities.
This week’s TGIF examines the NSW Supreme Court decision In the Matter of Kevin Jacobsen Pty Limited (in liq) [2016] NSWSC 538 which considered a challenge to an application under s 477(2B) to assign a cause of action.
WHAT HAPPENED?
On 10 August 2015, the liquidators of Kevin Jacobsen Pty Limited (in liquidation) (KJPL) applied to the NSW Supreme Court for:
Marsden v Screenmasters Australia provides guidance to liquidators who commence and continue proceedings, pursuant to funding arrangements, when met with arguments that the proceedings will not confer a benefit to creditors.
WHAT HAPPENED?
WHAT HAPPENED?
On 4 February 2013, Stansfield DIY Wealth Pty Ltd (in liquidation) was wound up, and a liquidator was appointed. At that time, the only function of the company was acting as trustee of a self-managed superannuation fund. It had no assets or liabilities, save in its capacity as trustee of the super fund.