The recent decision of the Federal Court in the matter of Divitkos, in the matter of ExDVD Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) [2014] FCA 696 confirms that where a receiver is required to make a payment under Section 433 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act) to a priority creditor (such as employee entitlements), the secured creditor (who appointed the receiver) may be entitled to be subrogated to the rights of that priority creditor in the winding up of the company.

The Law

A bankrupt trustee has been unsuccessful in trying to recover property of a former bankrupt more than 20 years after the date of bankruptcy. The decision of the Federal Court reinforces the limitation period in which a trustee can make a claim on any property of the bankrupt as outlined in Section 127(1) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) (Act)

Stewart v Atco Controls Pty Ltd (in Liquidation) [2014] HCA 15

The High Court this week reinforced the significance and standing of a Liquidator's equitable lien for his or her costs and expenses incurred in realising assets of a company in liquidation, as first clearly espoused by Justice Dixon in the 1933 case of Universal Distributing. Gadens acted for the successful Liquidator/Appellant in the unanimous judgment of the five High Court Justices.

The Principle

Introduction

Does the ATO have priority over secured creditors in a liquidation? Is a receiver required to account to the ATO for any tax payable out of funds received on the sale of an asset before accounting to the secured creditor? Are receivers and liquidators personally liable for the tax payable from funds received by them? Can receivers and liquidators avoid such personal liability by distributing funds received to creditors before a tax assessment arises? These issues were at the centre of a Federal Court judgment handed down on 21 February 2014.

Two days before Christmas, the Supreme Court of New South Wales delivered a bonus for the general unsecured creditors of the collapsed discount giant Retail Adventures, and confirmed the requirements for deeds of company arrangement.

Deeds of Company Arrangement

Today the High Court of Australia handed down a decision which confirms a liquidator has the green light to disclaim leasehold interests in land (Willmott Growers Group Inc v Willmott Forests Limited (receivers and managers appointed)(in liquidation)).

Due to the way in which the case came before the Courts, the High Court did not consider the application of s568B of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act). 

This section allows tenants to challenge in Court the liquidator’s disclaimer.

As electronic discovery has become more prevalent and voluminous, national standards for the preservation of evidence have evolved dramatically in the past decade. Through a proliferation of electronic discovery orders involving discovery compliance, courts have addressed when the duty to preserve evidence arises, signifying a party’s duty to issue a “litigation hold.” Courts have not answered, however, whether a party can withhold documents generated before issuing a litigation hold on the basis of work product protection.

On the somewhat unusual occasions when your judgment debtor has assets, the question turns to how do I maximize my judgment and collect every penny legitimately owed to my client?  Here are some thoughts:

ASIC suspended the Australian Financial Services Licence of LM Investment Management Limited for two years this week for being an externally managed vehicle (voluntary administrators were appointed in March 2013). The practical effect of the suspension will mean that LM Investment Management won’t continue managing its nine funds. ASIC is also investigating the complex structure of the business and their related party transactions with the principal, Peter Drake.

Recent Second Circuit and Ninth Circuit opinions highlight the dispute over whether or not the Bankruptcy Code authorizes allowance of claims for post-petition legal fees incurred by unsecured creditors. Specifically, while not all Circuits agree, in the wake of the 2007 United States Supreme Court decision Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. of North America v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co., 549 U.S.