The High Court has ordered a liquidator's firm to pay a proportion of the costs incurred by successful defendants following judgment in proceedings commenced by a claimant company in liquidation.
The High Court has ordered a liquidator’s firm to pay a proportion of the costs incurred by successful defendants following judgment in proceedings commenced by a claimant company in liquidation.
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?
Revisiting over 150 years of case law, the High Court has resolved a question on which both the courts and textbooks had given conflicting answers: is a director's liability for payment of a dividend which is unlawful as a result of incorrect accounts fault-based or strict?