The peak indebtedness rule employed by liquidators to maximise recovery of unfair preference claims is abolished

A recent case in the NSW Court of Appeal clarifies the purpose, and limits, of a public examination summons

The PAS Group decision reaffirms the principle that rent incurred during the administration period takes priority in the winding-up payment waterfall

Antqip Hire highlights the importance of drafting a DOCA carefully, and properly communicating to creditors the commercial risks

The case of Antqip Hire was brought by the liquidators of two related entities (Antqip Pty Limited and Antqip Hire Pty Limited).

Orders were sought determining:

A voluntary administrator is often appointed by the company. The directors have a role in selecting the administrator; often the referral will come through one of the company’s advisers, such as the accountant or lawyer.

National Rugby League (NRL) was successful in setting aside a summons for public examination obtained by the liquidator of Newheadspace Pty Limited (Newheadspace). The Court also awarded NRL its costs. The Court found that the creditors’ voluntary winding-up of Newheadspace was an abuse of process, and that the summonses were obtained for an improper purpose.

The Inner House of the Court of Session has found that, where a business had no realistic prospect of continuing in existence, it was not appropriate to assess whether a property was sold at an undervalue by reference to a forced sale valuation.

The Court’s judgment serves as a valuable reminder of some fundamental principles of insolvency law.

The facts

The Court of Session has confirmed that the administration in Scotland of a Scottish company will take priority over an Indian liquidation of the same company, regardless of where the company’s business and assets are situated. The Court has also confirmed that the validity and enforceability outside the UK of a floating charge is irrelevant to the validity of an administrator’s appointment in Scotland under that floating charge.

The Supreme Court has held that, where a company had been the victim of wrong-doing by its directors, the directors’ wrong-doing could not be attributed to the company to prevent it (or its liquidators) from bringing claims against the directors.