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.
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.
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 Australian Worldwide Pty Ltd v AW Exports Pty Ltd where the Court awarded security for costs against plaintiff companies in liquidation, despite a litigation funder’s indemnity against adverse costs.
Background
On various occasions during the periods 2012 to 2018, Shane Warner Builders Limited (SWBL) regularly failed to pay GST and PAYE to the Commissioner of Inland Revenue.
In January 2018 the Commissioner filed an application to put SWBL into liquidation. The proceeding was adjourned in March 2018 whilst the Commissioner and Applicant engaged in negotiations for relief which ultimately failed due to SWBL's history of failures to pay tax arrears and failing to provide substantive supporting evidence regarding the source of funds required to settle current tax arrears.
North Harbour Motors Limited (in liquidation) (North Harbour) issued a statutory demand against Moffat Road Limited (Moffat) in respect of two separate $30,000 deposits paid by North Harbour to Moffat on the purchase of two properties pursuant to agreements for sale and purchase dated 6 July 2015 (the Agreements).
In what is likely to be the final chapter in the Ross Asset Management (RAM) liquidation, assuming no appeal is filed, the High Court has considered an application for directions by the liquidators of Ross Asset Management concerning how best to distribute recovered funds. David Ross operated RAM as a Ponzi scheme for decades until the fraud was uncovered in 2012 and the company went into liquidation. Mr Ross is currently serving a ten year plus term of imprisonment for his role as architect of the scheme.
In Lafferty v Official Assignee Gordon J considered Mr Lafferty's appeal of two decisions of the Official Assignee to refuse Mr Lafferty's applications under section 62(1)(a) of the Insolvency Act 1967 to enter or carry on business while bankrupt.
Gordon J dismissed the appeal on the basis that Mr Lafferty could not show that the Official Assignee had made an error of law, failed to take into account relevant considerations or was manifestly wrong in exercising its discretion under regulation 34 of the Insolvency Regulations 1970.
An application by New Zealand Life Care Limited (Life Care) for an order reversing the decision of the Official Assignee to reject its claim for $4.9m in the bankruptcy of Mr Harman was dismissed by the High Court in New Zealand Life Care Ltd v Official Assignee [2018] NZHC 17. Life Care said that Mr Harman had guaranteed loans from Life Care to his companies, but accepted that it did not have a written guarantee signed by Mr Harman. Instead it relied on Mr Harman's admission of the guarantee in affidavits made after his adjudication.
The Hobson Apartments suffer from water tightness issues. Unusually for a unit development, the top floor apartment on level 12 owned by the appellant Manchester Securities, owned the exterior of its unit including the roof of the building rather than the Body Corporate. Severe water damage was identified in October 2009. Following a series of High Court decisions and one Court of Appeal decision, Manchester Securities was required to contribute certain amounts to the Body Corporate for repair costs.