The Federal Court of Australia has recently delivered judgment in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v ACN 152 259 839 Pty Ltd [2024] FCA 1489. The Court held that in some circumstances, a statutory demand can be validly served on a perceived temporarily empty company office.

On 20 May 2024, an ATO officer purported to serve ACN 152 259 839 Pty Ltd (the Company) with a statutory demand and an accompanying affidavit by leaving the documents at the Company’s registered office.

The Federal Court in Hema Maps Pty Ltd v HemaX Digital Pty Ltd, in the matter of HemaX Digital Pty Ltd [2024] FCA 1127, appointed a provisional liquidator to preserve the status quo until the determination of a winding up application. This winding up application was due to a deadlock and an irreparable breakdown in relations between shareholders, and mismanagement of the company.

Key Takeaways

The New South Wales Supreme Court has recently delivered judgment in the case of

In the matter of Bleecker Property Group Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) [2023] NSWSC 1071, appears to be the first published case that considers the question of whether an order can be made under section 588FF(1)(a) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) by way of default judgment against one defendant where there are multiple defendants in the proceedings.

Key takeaways

Federal appellate courts have traditionally applied a "person aggrieved" standard to determine whether a party has standing to appeal a bankruptcy court order or judgment. However, this standard, which requires a direct, adverse, and financial impact on a potential appellant, is derived from a precursor to the Bankruptcy Code and does not appear in the existing statute.

The court-fashioned doctrine of "equitable mootness" has frequently been applied to bar appeals of bankruptcy court orders under circumstances where reversal or modification of an order could jeopardize, for example, the implementation of a negotiated chapter 11 plan or related agreements and upset the expectations of third parties who have relied on the order.

On June 6, 2023, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas confirmed the chapter 11 plan of bedding manufacturer Serta Simmons Bedding, LLC and its affiliates (collectively, "Serta"). In confirming Serta's plan, the court held that a 2020 "uptier," or "position enhancement," transaction (the "2020 Transaction") whereby Serta issued new debt secured by a priming lien on its assets and purchased its existing debt from participating lenders at a discount with a portion of the proceeds did not violate the terms of Serta's 2016 credit agreement.

Section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code's "safe harbor" preventing avoidance in bankruptcy of certain securities, commodity, or forward-contract payments has long been a magnet for controversy. Several noteworthy court rulings have been issued in bankruptcy cases addressing the application of the provision, including application to financial institutions, its preemptive scope, and its application to non-publicly traded securities.

Bankruptcy trustees and chapter 11 debtors-in-possession ("DIPs") frequently seek to avoid fraudulent transfers and obligations under section 544(b) of the Bankruptcy Code and state fraudulent transfer or other applicable nonbankruptcy laws because the statutory "look-back" period for avoidance under many nonbankruptcy laws exceeds the two-year period governing avoidance actions under section 548.

In this week’s TGIF, we consider Hutton, in the matter of Caydon Flemington Pty Ltd (Receivers and Managers appointed) (In liq) [2023] FCA 796, a Federal Court decision concerning the grant of an extension after the ‘critical time’ for the vesting of a security interest.

Key takeaways