Two’s company when it comes to debt funding. Surely, three makes things a little crowded? It doesn’t have to be that way.

This week’s TGIF considers the Federal Court decision of National Australia Bank Ltd v Garrett [2016] FCA 714 in which the Court stepped in to invalidate and restrain an improper registration on the PPSR

BACKGROUND

This week’s TGIF considers the decision of Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Currey in which the Court looks at whether a breach of clause 25.1 of the Code of Banking Practice renders a guarantee void or voidable.

BACKGROUND

A bank lent money to a family company, which was secured by personal guarantees provided by the applicants. 

BACKGROUND

A fruit and vegetable supplier supplied the defendants’ company with fruit and vegetables over a number of years.  The defendants, who were brothers, were the directors of the company to whom the fruit and vegetables were supplied.

The company fell behind in its payments to the fruit and vegetable supplier.  A guarantee was provided by the brothers in order to secure the payment of debts owed by their company and ensure further supply.

The respondent in this matter, Mr Culleton, owed Macquarie Leasing Pty Limited (Macquarie) a debt arising out of two chattel mortgage agreements.

Macquarie obtained judgment against Mr Culleton in the amount of $94,304. The judgment debt was not paid and Macquarie petitioned for a sequestration order to be made against Mr Culleton’s estate.

Macquarie served the Bankruptcy Notice on Mr Culleton by affixing it to a padlocked gate at his last known address.

In the decision Equititrust Limited (In Liq) (Receiver Appointed) (Receivers and Managers Appointed) in its capacity as responsible entity of the Equititrust Income Fund v Equititrust Limited (In Liq) (Receiver Appointed) (Receivers and Managers Appointed) in its own capacity [2014] FCA 692,the Federal Court of Australia considered an application to set aside or stay indefinitely liquidator examinations of former auditors under s596B of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

After nearly 20 years, the long running Bell litigation is almost over, with the Supreme Court of Western Australia having approved the settlement between the liquidators of the Bell group of companies and the syndicate of banks involved in the litigation (Re Bell Group (In Liq); Ex Parte Antony Leslie John Wooding as Liquidator of the Bell Group Ltd (In Liq) [2013] WASC 409).

BACKGROUND

The recent Federal Court of Australia decision in Yu v STX Pan Ocean Co Ltd (South Korea), in the matter of STX Pan Ocean Co Ltd (receivers appointed in South Korea) [2013] FCA 680, highlights that the Court will be reluctant to grant additional relief to a foreign representative under the Cross Border Insolvency Act 2008 (Cth) where the additional relief sought would adversely affect the rights of creditors.

Facts

In a recent decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (In the matter of C.V. Joint (Aust) Pty Ltd [2002] NSWSC 981), a provisional liquidator was appointed by the Court to a company primarily due to an ongoing dispute between the directors and shareholders. The case is a useful reminder of the relevant principles that apply when seeking to have a provisional liquidator appointed.

Key takeaways

This week’s TGIF considers In the matter of Guided Knowledge Group Pty Ltd [2022] NSWSC 255 in which a liquidator sought approval for his remuneration under Schedule 2 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

Key Takeaways