This week’s TGIF considers a NSW Court of Appeal decision which confirms that liquidators who bring a claim for preference payments within the limitation period may amend that claim to capture additional transactions otherwise subject to a statutory bar.
Background
Sydney Recycling Park (SRP) provided “tipping services” to Cardinal Group (Cardinal), who were in the business of “waste management”. Cardinal ran into some financial difficulties and on 1 February 2012, it was placed into liquidation.
This week’s TGIF considers the most recent decision in a line of cases which hold that the provisions of the Code of Banking Practice may be incorporated into loan agreements, as well as guarantees given by individuals.
BACKGROUND
History
On 1 May 2014, the Creditor commenced proceedings against the Debtor for a sequestration order against his estate in respect of unpaid legal costs awarded by the Magistrates Court of Western Australia.
Various preliminary issues protracted the case, including:
BACKGROUND
A bank loaned over $8,000,000 to Areaworks Pty Ltd for a property development in Victoria. Adrian Liddell (Liddell) provided a guarantee of the debt. Subsequent to default under the facility, the bank sold the secured property and commenced debt recovery proceedings against Liddell for the shortfall of over $700,000 owing to it.
A sequestration order was subsequently made against Liddell upon the presentation by Liddell of a debtor’s petition, with admitted debts in his bankruptcy totalling $3,303,078.
The Supreme Court of Western Australia recently handed down its decision in Soil and Contracting Pty Ltd v Boban Pty Ltd [2014] WASC 402 which confirmed that, notwithstanding the operation of s 459R of the Corporations Act, the slip rule is available to extend the time limit within which a winding up application may be determined.
SECTION 459R
The Financial System Inquiry was formed on 20 November 2013 by our Federal Treasurer to examine how our financial system could be positioned to best meet Australia’s evolving needs and support economic growth. The Inquiry received over 280 first round submissions and released it’s Interim Report earlier this week. [1]
The recent Victorian Supreme Court decision of Le Roi Homestyle Cookies Pty Ltd (in liquidation) v Gemmell [2013] VSC 452 determined that a person who does not claim privilege when being publicly examined by a liquidator will not be allowed to avoid pleading and providing discovery in subsequent civil proceedings on the basis that complying may expose them to a civil penalty or criminal sanction.
Facts
The defendants were alleged former de facto and shadow directors of Le Roi Homestyle Pty Ltd.
The recent Federal Court of Australia (Court) decision Hird, in the matter of Allmine Group Limited (Administrators Appointed) (Receivers and Managers Appointed) [2013] FCA 748 involved an application for an extension to the convening period.
Facts
Changes to the Listing Rules and further consultation on enhancing the effectiveness of the regime
Summary
In Carey v Korda [2012] WASCA 228, the Western Australian Supreme Court of Appeal (Court) has provided a timely confirmation that legal advisers engaged by receivers to provide advice in relation to a receivership are properly viewed as advisers to the receivers as principal, and not the mortgagor company.
The decision will no doubt be welcomed by insolvency practitioners, as it confirms that the legal advice, and the right to invoke the associated privilege, belongs to the receivers, not the mortgagor company.