This week’s TGIF considers the decision in Adelaide Brighton Cement Limited v Concrete Supply Pty Ltd (Subject to Deed of Company Arrangement) (No 4)[2019] FCA 1846, where the Court terminated a deed of company arrangement in circumstances where the administrators had not undertaken sufficient investigations.
Background
On 4 November 2017, administrators were appointed to Concrete Supply Pty Ltd.
This week’s TGIF considers a recent application by a liquidator to the NSW Supreme Court for directions regarding the sale of trust property where the trust deed could not be found.
Background
This week’s TGIF considers a recent Federal Court decision where the Court found a company’s general purpose liquidators had not acted unreasonably in opposing an application that special purpose liquidators also be appointed.
Background
This week’s TGIF considers a recent decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia regarding an application for a company to be wound up under s 459P of the Corporations Act or, alternatively, on just and equitable grounds.
What happened?
This week’s TGIF considers the decision in Dudley (Liquidator) v RGH Construction Fitout & Maintenance Pty Ltd (No 2) [2019] FCA 1355, where the Court exercised its discretion to cure a procedural irregularity in a mothership proceeding.
This week’s TGIF considers the latest chapter in the story of Legend International Holdings Inc, where the Court of Appeal considered whether Legend was insolvent, whether mining tenements held by Legend’s subsidiary constituted ‘readily realisable assets’, and whether various deeds entered into by Legend were void as uncommercial transactions.
This week’s TGIF considers the Federal Court’s decision of In the matter of Boka Beverages Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) [2019] FCA 1184, regarding an application for the appointment of special purpose liquidators.
What happened?
This week’s TGIF considers the decision in ACN 093 117 232 Pty Ltd (In Liq) v Intelara Engineering Consultants Pty Ltd (In Liq) [2019] FCA 1489, where the Court determined that a transaction described as a ‘legal phoenix’ by the advising practitioner was, in fact, an uncommercial transaction and an unreasonable director related transaction.
What happened?
In Short
The Situation: Should liquidators be removed under section 90-15 of the Insolvency Practice Schedule (Corporations) in circumstances where they engaged in preappointment discussions with a secured creditor, allegedly failed to investigate the company's affairs promptly, and retained the company's preappointment solicitors?
In Short
The Situation: A liquidator can reject a "double proof" for what is, in substance, the same debt as another accepted proof of debt.
The Question: When are liquidators justified in rejecting what could arguably be a double proof?