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.

The Federal Court’s recent decision in Kellendonk concerned a $350,000 loan made by the applicants, Mr and Mrs Kellendonk, to Ms Maria Jasienska-Dudek to help her buy a property in Midland, Western Australia (Property). Ms Jasienska-Dudek defaulted under the loan agreement and the parties subsequently entered an informal agreement which, after Ms Jasienska-Dudek became a bankrupt, led to some novel circumstances and a novel application of section 133 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) (the Bankruptcy Act).

Cross-border insolvency has ventured into new territory as a judgment is released from the first contemporaneous sitting of the Federal Court of Australia and the High Court of New Zealand.

In Re Octaviar Ltd,^[1] the Supreme Court of Queensland has given a recent example of a settlement considered too ‘good’ to approve, even while noting its failure to achieve perfection.

In Re Cullen Group,[1] the Supreme Court of Queensland considered the determination of a preliminary question regarding the insolvency of Cullen Group Australia Pty Ltd (Cullen Group), which was placed into liquidation approximately four years prior to the hearing date.

In Krejci, in the matter of Union Standard International Group Pty Ltd,[1] the Federal Court provides an example of the ways in which section 90-15 of the Insolvency Practice Schedule

The Bankruptcy Protector

In City of Chicago, Illinois v. Fulton, No. 19-357, 2021 WL 125106, at *1 (U.S. Jan. 14, 2021), the United States Supreme Court considered the issue of whether the mere retention of estate property after the filing of a bankruptcy petition violates section 362(a)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code. Reversing the Seventh Circuit and resolving a split among the circuits, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously on January 14, 2021 “that mere retention of property does not violate the [automatic stay in] § 362(a)(3).”

In the recent decision of Cant v Mad Brothers Earthmoving,[1] the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria (Justices Beach, McLeish and Hargrave) considered whether the liquidator of Eliana Construction and Developing Group (in liquidation) (Eliana) could establish that a payment made to an unsecured creditor of Eliana by one of Eliana’s related companies was an unfair preference.

The recent Federal Court decision of Scott v Southern Highlands Waste & Recycling Pty Ltd[1] provides liquidators with important guidance regarding the availability of search and seizure warrants under section 530C of the Corporations Act2001 (Cth) (the Corps Act).

In the recent Gunns decisions, the Federal Court considered three separate unfair preference claims brought by the liquidators of Gunns Limited (in Liquidation) (Gunns) against: