In its recent judgment of Morgan,In the matter of Brighton Hall Securities Pty Ltd (in liquidation) [2013] FCA 970, the Federal Court of Australia determined that a liquidator is entitled to retain certain remuneration and other expenses from the proceeds of a claim under a professional indemnity insurance policy in preference to claimants, who would otherwise have a statutory priority under section 562 of the Corporations Act.

BACKGROUND

In the recent decision of Wentworth Metals Group Pty Ltd v Leigh and Owen (as liquidators of Bonython Metals Group Pty Limited); In the matter of Bonython Metals Group Pty Ltd (In liq) [2013] FCA 349, the Federal Court considered the duties owed by a liquidator when selling assets and the circumstances in which a court should interfere with the decisions of a liquidator.

BACKGROUND

The recent Federal Court of Australia (Court) decision Hird, in the matter of Allmine Group Limited (Administrators Appointed) (Receivers and Managers Appointed) [2013] FCA 748 involved an application for an extension to the convening period.

Facts

The Supreme Court has handed down its highly anticipated judgment in the joint Nortel Networks/Lehman Brothers appeal.  The administrators of Nortel and Lehman Brothers entities had appealed against the Court of Appeal’s decision that Financial Support Directions (FSDs) issued by the Pensions Regulator (“the Regulator”) after the appointment of administrators attracted priority status as an administration expense.  Rejecting the decision of the lower courts, the Supreme Court ruled that an FSD issued during the course of an administration will rank as a provable debt rather than a

The recent Supreme Court of New South Wales decision of In the matter of Octaviar Administration Pty Limited (in liquidation) [2013] NSWSC 786 confirms that liquidators must notify all interested parties prior to seeking an extension for the period in which to bring preference actions.  For the first time, the Court has confirmed that the directors of the insolvent company are “interested persons” in cases where a liquidator intends to pursue the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) over potential preferential payments based solely on the potential for the ATO to

The uncertainty continues. Over the past few years, the published guidance from HMRC has given rise to doubts as to the tax treatment of debt-for-equity swaps. Whether the current legislation has supported HMRC’s position is debatable but it now appears that HMRC would like to have the legislation amended to more closely reflect its views.

In the recent decision of ASIC v ActiveSuper Pty Ltd (No 2) [2013] FCA 234 (ActiveSuper), the Federal Court considered an application by ASIC brought pursuant to s 472(2) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act) to appoint provisional liquidators to a company MOGS Pty Ltd (MOGS).

In Saraceni v ASIC [2013] FCAFC 42 the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia confirmed that it is not necessary for ASIC to provide potential examinees with an opportunity to be heard prior to authorising receivers to conduct examinations under s596A of the Corporations Act.

FACTS

The recent New South Wales Supreme Court (Court) decision in Plaza West Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (subject to a deed of company arrangement) [2013] NSWSC 168 involved an application to terminate the winding up of a company subject to a deed of company arrangement (DOCA) and emphasised the importance of comprehensive reports from the company’s administrators and experts, in deciding that application.

Background

The Facts

In this case the liquidators of Octaviar Administration had obtained an extension to the time for them to bring voidable transaction proceedings under section 588FF(1) of the Corporations Act (Extension Order). Before the expiration of the Extension Order, the liquidators sought a further extension under s588FF(3)(b) or, alternatively, asked the Court to vary the date in the Extension Order pursuant to the Court’s procedural powers under r 36.16 of Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) (UCPR).