This week’s TGIF takes a look at the recent case of Mills Oakley (a partnership) v Asset HQ Australia Pty Ltd [2019] VSC 98, where the Supreme Court of Victoria found the statutory presumption of insolvency did not arise as there had not been effective service of a statutory demand due to a typographical error in the postal address.
What happened?
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
Llamo la atención sobre las dos cuestiones enunciadas, que tienen una indudable relevancia práctica en relación con los recursos extraordinarios:
1) La Sentencia del Tribunal Supremo 61/2019 de 31 enero (RJ 2019\227) aborda cuál debe ser la correcta interpretación del artículo 167.1 de la Ley Concursal, que contempla los supuestos en los que «no procederá la formación de la sección de calificación del concurso» cuando en el mismo haya sido aprobado judicialmente un convenio: si se establece en él, «para todos los acreedores o para los de una o varias clases, entendiendo igualmente por tales las establecidas en el artículo 94.2, una quita inferior a un tercio del importe de sus créditos o una espera inferior a tres años, salvo que res
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.
Se examina, en concreto, el supuesto de que se acuerde el régimen de suspensión de facultades y la administración concursal decide no hacer operativa en la primera instancia la sustitución prevista en la ley.
1. Los hechos analizados por la STS 570/2018, de 15 de octubre (RJ 2018/4613) y el problema planteado
Los hechos relevantes son los siguientes:
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 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.