This week’s TGIF considers a recent decision of the High Court of Australia, in which a 4:3 majority held that a former trustee is not owed any fiduciary obligation by a successor trustee.

Key takeaways

In Davis-Jacenko v Roxy’s Bootcamp Pty Limited [2024] NSWSC 702, McGrath J delivered an extempore decision, appointing provisional liquidators in respect of Roxy’s Bootcamp Pty Limited (theCompany). His Honour stated that it was “a paradigm case” for the court to intervene to preserve the status quo.

Key Takeaways

In a recent case, the Victorian Supreme Court said that an accountant ‘would know well that a statutory demand involves strict time frames for response and potentially very significant consequences for a company’. The accountant failed to take appropriate steps to inform the company of the statutory demand.

The statutory demand process

If a company does not comply with a statutory demand within 21 days of service, it is deemed to be insolvent and the creditor may proceed to wind up the company.

A recent court decision considers the legal principles and sufficiency of evidence when a court-appointed receiver seeks approval of their remuneration.

A court-appointed receiver needs court approval for the payment of their remuneration. The receiver has the onus of establishing the reasonableness of the work performed and of the remuneration sought.

When do amounts owed to a company constitute ‘circulating assets’ and how should they be distributed? This crucial question has not always been answered predictably in recent cases. The Court of Appeal’s decision in Resilient Investment Group Pty Ltd v Barnet and Hodgkinson as liquidators of Spitfire Corporation Limited (in liq) [2023] NSWCA 118 has provided a framework for navigating the relevant principles in the context of a priority dispute over R&D tax refunds.

Key takeaways

The Dubai Court of First Instance concludes that preventive composition, restructuring, bankruptcy, and liquidation are only possible if the debtor company has existing assets.

In a recent judgment issued on 26 April 2023 the Dubai Court of First Instance rejected the liquidation application of an indebted company on the basis that the company does not have any assets that could be liquidated.

Over the past year or so, we have seen a number of examples of Dubai Courts taking an extremely cautious approach to handling debtor-led bankruptcy cases, particularly in relation to determining whether there is a legitimate distressed financial position and enquiring as to the conduct of managers leading to the bankruptcy of companies.

In a judgment rendered on 10 October 2021, the Dubai Court of First Instance had concluded that current and former directors and managers of Marka were personally liable towards creditors of the company merely on the basis that the assets of the company were not sufficient to pay at least 20% of its debts. The 20% threshold was set in onshore Federal Decree Law No. (9) of 2016 on Bankruptcy (the Bankruptcy Law) as it then was, and the Court determined that liability applied to current and former directors and managers without distinction where the threshold is not met.

In the recent case of Stubbings v Jams 2 Pty Ltd [2022] HCA 6, the High Court has allowed an appeal relating to asset-based lending (ABL) and the enforceability of security associated with these loans. The High Court held that whilst asset-based lending itself is not unconscionable, certain conduct may render loans and security unenforceable. The decision is a reminder that lenders should ensure the circumstances of potential borrowers are fully scrutinised prior to lending.

This week’s TGIF considers a recent case where the Supreme Court of Queensland rejected a director’s application to access an executory contract of sale entered into by receivers and managers on the basis it was not a ‘financial record’

Key Takeaways