Iniciado un despido colectivo y alcanzado un acuerdo entre los representantes de los trabajadores y el empresario en el periodo de consultas, se plantea si la impugnación individual de cada despido puede cuestionar la concurrencia de las causas que lo motivan. El diferente tratamiento normativo —laboral, concursal, procesal— y la distinta dicción sobre esta materia en procesos de naturaleza colectiva —modificación sustancial, movilidad, suspensión contractual— obligan a precisar una solución, sustantiva y procesalmente determinante.

This week’s TGIF article looks at the decision of Hooke v Bux Global Ltd (No 6) [2018] FCA 1545, where Bux Global Ltd (Bux Global) was wound up on just and equitable grounds and the perceived independence of a director-appointed liquidator was questioned.

Background

This week’s TGIF considers the recent case of Vanguard v Modena [2018] FCA 1461, where the Court ordered a non-party director to pay indemnity costs due to his conduct in opposing winding-up proceedings against his company.

Background

Vanguard served a statutory demand on Modena on 27 September 2017 seeking payment of outstanding “commitment fees” totalling $138,000 which Modena was obliged, but had failed, to repay.

The recent decision of the Court of Appeal of Western Australia, Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd v Forge Group Power Pty Ltd (in Liquidation) (Receivers and Managers Appointed) [2018] WASCA 163 provides much needed clarity around the law of set-off. The decision will no doubt help creditors sleep well at night, knowing that when contracting with counterparties that later become insolvent they will not lose their set-off rights for a lack of mutuality where the counterparty has granted security over its assets.

This week’s TGIF considers the decision in Mujkic Family Company Pty Ltd v Clarke & Gee Pty Ltd [2018] TASFC 4, which concerns a rather novel issue – whether a solicitor acting for a shareholder might also owe a duty of care to the company in liquidation.

What happened?

In 2015, the Supreme Court of Queensland ordered that the corporate trustee of a family trust be wound up.

This week’s TGIF considers the process that a liquidator may follow when a director fails to attend at an examination. It considers the appeal in Mensink v Parbery [2018] FCAFC 101, in which the Court set out the relevant differences between arrest warrants issued to require a director to attend an examination, and arrest warrants to answer charges for contempt.

What happened?

In accordance with EU legislation, Member States have the power to limit the obligation of public guarantee institutions to pay employees’ claims in the event of their employer’s insolvency. The Court of Justice found to be compliant a national provision (Bulgarian law) that confines the protection given by said guarantee institutions to those employment relationships that have not ended within the three months prior to the opening of insolvency proceedings.

Todos los supuestos de extinción en que ésta es adoptada por voluntad del trabajador, pero derivada de una decisión unilateral de la empresa, han de tener el mismo tratamiento por parte de los Estados miembros. Así lo señala el Tribunal de de Justicia en un reciente pronunciamiento en el que resuelve una cuestión cuya trascendencia práctica desborda el supuesto planteado específicamente.

How far do liquidators’ powers to demand documents for public examinations extend? Which documents can they request and from whom can they request them?

In this week’s TGIF, we consider these questions in the context of the recent case of Re Cathro [2018] FCA 1138.

BACKGROUND

This week’s TGIF examines a recent decision of the New South Wales Court of Appeal in Hosking v Extend N Build Pty Limited [2018] NSWCA 149, which considered whether payments made by a third party to an insolvent company’s creditors could be recovered by the liquidator as unfair preferences.

What happened?