The recent High Court judgment in Re CGL Realisations Limited (In Liquidation) in favour of Geoff Carton-Kelly as additional liquidator of failed electrical retailer Comet ordered the company’s former French parent, Darty, to pay over £100m to restore the preferential repayment of an intercompany loan owed to Darty in the run-up to Comet’s sale shortly before its insolvency. The additional liquidator was appointed in 2018 by the court specifically to investigate the circumstances of Comet’s sale in advance of its demise in 2012.

The costs regime in insolvency litigation is outdated and not fit for purpose, especially when it comes to the clawback claims designed to allow officeholders to restore the insolvent estate when assets have been deliberately dissipated. Many such claims can become uneconomical to run, especially where recipients of dissipated assets have no desire to preserve them but every incentive to diminish them with their own costs. Often a sale or assignment is the last resort to seek justice against wrongdoers in such situations.

Another interesting summary in the Times reporting on the staggering levels of fraud committed against the UK taxpayer during the pandemic. Whilst the Insolvency Service are clearly doing their best to hold fraudsters to account through disqualification orders and similar punitive measures, it appears that we are no closer to a financial recovery of any meaningful value, or at the very least imposing real financial pain on those who took advantage of the country’s generosity in the face of the unprecedented challenges of the Covid pandemic.

This week’s TGIF takes a look at the recent case of Mills Oakley (a partnership) v Asset HQ Australia Pty Ltd [2019] VSC 98, where the Supreme Court of Victoria found the statutory presumption of insolvency did not arise as there had not been effective service of a statutory demand due to a typographical error in the postal address.

What happened?

This week’s TGIF examines a decision of the Victorian Supreme Court which found that several proofs had been wrongly admitted or rejected, and had correct decisions been made, the company would not have been put into liquidation.

BACKGROUND

This week’s TGIF considers Re Broens Pty Limited (in liq) [2018] NSWSC 1747, in which a liquidator was held to be justified in making distributions to creditors in spite of several claims by employees for long service leave entitlements.

What happened?

On 19 December 2016, voluntary administrators were appointed to Broens Pty Limited (the Company). The Company supplied machinery & services to manufacturers in aerospace, rail, defence and mining industries.

This week’s TGIF considers the recent case of Vanguard v Modena [2018] FCA 1461, where the Court ordered a non-party director to pay indemnity costs due to his conduct in opposing winding-up proceedings against his company.

Background

Vanguard served a statutory demand on Modena on 27 September 2017 seeking payment of outstanding “commitment fees” totalling $138,000 which Modena was obliged, but had failed, to repay.

The recent decision of the Court of Appeal of Western Australia, Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd v Forge Group Power Pty Ltd (in Liquidation) (Receivers and Managers Appointed) [2018] WASCA 163 provides much needed clarity around the law of set-off. The decision will no doubt help creditors sleep well at night, knowing that when contracting with counterparties that later become insolvent they will not lose their set-off rights for a lack of mutuality where the counterparty has granted security over its assets.

This week’s TGIF considers the decision in Mujkic Family Company Pty Ltd v Clarke & Gee Pty Ltd [2018] TASFC 4, which concerns a rather novel issue – whether a solicitor acting for a shareholder might also owe a duty of care to the company in liquidation.

What happened?

In 2015, the Supreme Court of Queensland ordered that the corporate trustee of a family trust be wound up.

This week’s TGIF considers the process that a liquidator may follow when a director fails to attend at an examination. It considers the appeal in Mensink v Parbery [2018] FCAFC 101, in which the Court set out the relevant differences between arrest warrants issued to require a director to attend an examination, and arrest warrants to answer charges for contempt.

What happened?