This week’s TGIF examines a decision where the Court ordered a director, who caused a company to bring proceedings challenging a receiver appointment, to be joined to the claim and indemnify the company for its exposure to a costs order.
Key Takeaways
COVID-19 has made an undeniable and significant impact on many businesses around Australia. With each lockdown and implementation of harsh restrictions, business owners and directors are forced to scramble to keep their business afloat. No doubt liquidators will shortly be inundated with companies desperately trying to evaluate their options.
Insolvency, voluntary administration, bankruptcy and liquidation are terms that are consistently being thrown around. But what do they mean? Is there a difference?
Insolvency
In brief - Malvern Developments successfully applies to have creditor's statutory demand set aside, satisfying Supreme Court of a genuine offset claim
A recent case handed down in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Re Western Port Holdings Pty Ltd (rec and mgr apptd) (in liq) (2021) 39 ACLC ¶21-016; [2021] NSWSC 232, concerned the recoverability of payments as unfair preferences pursuant to Pt
The peak indebtedness rule employed by liquidators to maximise recovery of unfair preference claims is abolished
An appeal against a decision to summarily dismiss the appellant’s application to have consent orders set aside has been allowed, after the Full Court found that the appellant was no longer a person affected by the consent orders.
Section 440A(2) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the Act) requires the Court to adjourn a winding up application if it is satisfied that it would be in the best interest of creditors for the company to continue under administration rather than be wound up.
Hughes, in the matter of Substar Holdings Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (No. 2) (Substar No. 2) considers the Court’s discretionary power to terminate the winding up of a company pursuant to s 482(1) of the Corporations Act 2001. Substar No. 2 follows the decision of Hughes, in the matter of Substar Holdings Pty Ltd (in liquidation) [2020] FCA 1863(Substar (No. 1), which considered the extent to which liquidators can realise trust assets when a corporate trustee enters into liquidation.
I have written approximately 130 Helix Legal articles where I have focused on conveying information to readers concisely, factually and always looking to be positive.
I do not like ‘shock and awe’ articles where the clear intent is to scare people into doing something. There are much better ways to engage with people.
However, on the other hand, I have never shied away from raising awareness on significant industry issues that are confronting, and indeed very uncomfortable to talk about.
In LCM Operations Pty Ltd, in the matter of 316 Group Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) [2021] FCA 324, the Federal Court considered whether a third party who has been assigned a company’s claim by a liquidator breached the Harman undertaking with respect to documents obtained through public examinations.
What happened?