This week’s TGIF considers Singh v De Castro [2017] NSWCA 241, where the New South Wales Court of Appeal held that five directors of an insolvent corporate borrower had executed and were bound by personal guarantees.

BACKGROUND

The decision was an appeal from a decision of the District Court of New South Wales finding that five directors of an insolvent corporate borrower had executed and were bound by personal guarantees.

This week’s TGIF considers whether, in a voluntary administration, a report to creditors constituted sufficient disclosure and whether the proponent of a DOCA should be allowed to vote as a creditor in favour of that DOCA.

WHAT HAPPENED?

This week’s TGIF considers whether a flexible payment arrangement between a subsidiary and its holding company creditor meant the parent suffered no loss on the insolvency of the subsidiary.

What happened?

On 17 August 2017, the West Australian Court of Appeal published its reasons in Perrine v Carrello [2017] WASCA 151 drawing a close to the long-running dispute between the Perrines and the liquidator (Liquidator) of their failed pod-home building company (PodCo).

Key points

• The dismissal of the appellant’s previous application for an annulment of a bankruptcy order was a serious procedural irregularity
• A court may annul a bankruptcy order under s 282 IA 1986 if it is satisfied that the order ought not to have been made based on grounds existing at the time the order was made
• In relation to appeals made pursuant to s 375 IA 1986 to review or rescind the decision of a lower court, the court may consider fresh material.

The facts

The NSW Supreme Court has given a Landlord leave to commence proceedings against a company for rent and make good costs arising after the date of the DOCA.

BACKGROUND

This week’s TGIF considers the decision of EH 2015 Pty Ltd (in liq) v Caratti (No 3) [2017] WASC 210 which concerned the rights of a liquidator to funds paid into court as security by a company which subsequently became insolvent.

What happened?

On 20 January 2016, a liquidator was appointed to a trustee company pursuant to an order of the Federal Court.

This week’s TGIF considers what the UK decision of Simpkin v The Berkeley Group Holdings PLC [2017] EWHC 1472 means for insolvency practitioners seeking to access potentially privileged documents created by employees of appointee companies.

BACKGROUND

Key points

• A practical approach was adopted by the court in respect of deadlines for submitting administration expense claims that were otherwise holding up the making of distributions to unsecured creditors.
• In the absence of a suitable statutory mechanism, the court allowed for a cut-off date by which expense claims must be submitted.

The administrators of 18 of the Nortel companies applied to court for directions on how to deal with potential claims for administration expenses.

This week’s TGIF examines a recent decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales which considered whether payments made by a third party to a company’s creditors could be recovered as unfair preferences.

What happened?

On 2 September 2015, liquidators were appointed to a building and construction company (the Company) and later commenced proceedings against eight defendants for the recovery of payments considered to be unfair preferences.

Key Points 

• S 304 of the Insolvency Act 1986 is concerned with acts or omissions by a trustee in bankruptcy that have caused loss or damage to the estate

• However, the wording of that Section does not go so far as to state that in no circumstances can a trustee owe an enforceable duty in respect of loss or damage caused to the bankrupt personally.

The Facts