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 a recent decision of the Victorian Court of Appeal where a company’s creditors successfully opposed an application by the company’s liquidators to compromise proceedings commenced on the company’s behalf.

In this week’s TGIF, we consider the dangers of being the last one standing in ‘mothership’ preference claims. In the recent decision of In the matter of Bias Boating Pty Limited (receivers and managers appointed) (in liquidation) [2019] NSWSC 47, Black J ordered costs against a number of defendants to a preliminary question of insolvency even though they did not participate in the hearing of that question.

This week’s TGIF covers the Federal Court’s refusal in Lock, in the matter of Cedenco JV Australia Pty Ltd (in liq) (No 2) [2019] FCA 93 to validate creditors’ resolutions fixing $5m+ of remuneration where creditors were given insufficient information; reduced remuneration to be fixed.

11 February orders refusing validation

This week’s TGIF considers Re Legend International Holdings Inc (In liq) [2018] VSC 789, the next chapter in the story of Legend International Holdings Inc, where the Court found a company to be insolvent on the basis of a foreign debt.

This week’s TGIF considers a recent Federal Court decision which validated dispositions of property made by a company after the winding up began.

WHAT HAPPENED?

On 8 May 2017, Bond J ordered that a coal exploration company (the Company) be wound up on just and equitable grounds following a shareholder oppression claim. So as to avoid the consequences of a liquidation, his Honour immediately stayed that order for a period of 7 days to enable the warring parties a final chance to resolve their differences.

No. The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s original finding, namely that no duty to consider AWA’s creditors had arisen. Whilst AWA’s directors had made provision for the contingent liabilities in question, this did not itself mean AWA was insolvent or close to insolvency. In fact, it was not, and so the duty to consider AWA’s creditors never arose.

Practical implications

Although this decision simply confirms the High Court’s original decision, it emphasises the care and vigilance with which directors of a company need to act when paying dividends.

Court confirms dividends can be transactions at an undervalue

The Court of Appeal has confirmed that a dividend paid by a company to its shareholders can constitute a transaction at an undervalue under insolvency law.

What happened?

At the initial hearing, the High Court found the dividend was caught by section 423 and was therefore invalid. Importantly, it said that a dividend could constitute a transaction at an undervalue. This was an important confirmation, and the High Court has since followed this approach (for example, in Dickinson v NAL Realisations (Staffordshire) Ltd).

This week’s TGIF considers a recent decision of the Federal Court where a special purpose liquidator was appointed to investigate suspected illegal phoenix activity.

WHAT HAPPENED?

The company formerly known as Intelara Pty Ltd (Intelara) was wholly owned by and had common directors with Intelara Holdings Pty Ltd (Holdings). The directors of both companies were also the shareholders of Holdings.