In January 2014 I published an article titled “Directors Duties – Insolvent Trading: Five rules to deal with a company in financial difficulty” in which I called upon the Federal government to reform Australia’s harsh insolvent trading laws and bring in some protections against ipso facto clauses in order to facilitate the restructuring of businesses.

BACKGROUND

Administrators were appointed to a company and as a result, the company entered into a Deed of Company Arrangement (DOCA). 

After the DOCA had been entered into, a secured creditor who had abstained from voting on the decision of whether the company should enter into the DOCA, purported to appoint an administrator under its security. 

The deed administrators sought a declaration from the Court that the second administration should be terminated (amongst other things). 

DECISION

The Federal Court has recently handed down a decision that clarifies the power of receivers to administer trust property under a debenture. In Benton, in the matter of Mackay Rural Pty Ltd (Receivers and Managers Appointed) [2014] FCA 1285, the Federal Court confirmed that section 420 of the Corporations Act 2001 (“the Act”) confers upon receivers a power to dispose of trust property, provided that this is necessary for the purpose for which they have been appointed.

FACTS

The recent appeal decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court in ASIC v Franklin (liquidator) and ors [2014] FCAFC 85 reinforces the importance of the independence of liquidators and also provides further guidance on the contents of declarations of independence, relevant relationships and indemnities (known as a “DIRRI”) by administrators.

In the case of Bosi Security Services Ltd v Wright [2013] WASC 431, in which the court granted an interlocutory injunction preventing the sale of land by receivers despite acknowledging that the applicants’ case under the Trade Practices Act and Australian Consumer Law was not a strong one and had obvious deficiencies.

Facts

In the recent decision of Wentworth Metals Group Pty Ltd v Leigh and Owen (as liquidators of Bonython Metals Group Pty Limited); In the matter of Bonython Metals Group Pty Ltd (In liq) [2013] FCA 349, the Federal Court considered the duties owed by a liquidator when selling assets and the circumstances in which a court should interfere with the decisions of a liquidator.

BACKGROUND

A prohibition order in place on a development in Hassall Street, Parramatta, NSW, serves as a useful reminder for developers, builders and financiers of the importance of complying with the requirements of the Design and Building Practitioners Act 2020 (NSW) (DBP Act) and the Residential Apartment Buildings (Compliance and Enforcement Powers) Act 2020 (NSW) (RAB Act) (together, the Acts) (and the consequences of non-compliance).

This week’s TGIF considers an interlocutory decision of Ball J in the NSW Supreme Court in Aqua Botanical Beverages (Australia) Pty Ltd v Botanical Water Technologies Pty Ltd [2022] NSWSC 435, in which the Court dismissed an application to add an oppression claim where the company went into liquidation after commencing proceedings.

Key Takeaways

This week’s TGIF considers the recent Federal Court decision in Alfonso, in the matter of Pinnacle Fire Protection Pty Ltd (in liq) v Woods [2021] FCA 1402, where liquidators sought Court approval to enter a long-term settlement agreement.

Key Takeaways

This week’s TGIF considers a decision of the Federal Court which concerned a request for an extension to bring a voidable transaction claim where, but for COVID-19, the application would have been filed.

Key takeaways