It is common for liquidators (and all of us working in the insolvency industry) to work with a few firms or individuals and for referrals to predominantly be distributed amongst those. In the recent decision in Re Walton Construction Pty Ltd (In Liq); ASIC V Franklin [2014] FCA 68, the Federal Court considered when that relationship might amount to a conflict.
A Deed of Company Arrangement (DOCA) is essentially the equivalent of a PIA for a corporation. However, a company must be in administration for a DOCA to be proposed.
A Personal Insolvency Agreement, otherwise known as a PIA, is a flexible arrangement between debtors and their creditors. It involves a debtor putting forward a proposal as to how their financial affairs should be administered with a view to ensuring that creditors receive a dividend in respect of their debts.
A PIA will only come into operation if it has been accepted by a special resolution at a meeting of creditors – meaning a majority in numbers and at least 75% in value must vote in favour of the PIA.
Partner, Michael Lhuede and Senior Associate, Ben Hartley discuss the recent Federal Court decision of AMWU v Beynon that dealt with directors’ personal liability for the payment of employee entitlements.
Introduction
Insolvency practitioners need to be aware of the potential for incurring personal liability under civil penalty provisions for contraventions of the Fair Work Act and how they can protect themselves from claims when accepting appointments.
The term “globalisation” is associated with expansion and the free movement of capital and resources. Funds raised in Country A can be invested in a variety of different countries for better returns. In times of economic expansion, it can be unfashionable to consider insolvency issues. This may explain why insolvency practitioners find themselves holding many discussions among themselves.
High Court holds that reports used by the Serious Fraud Office to obtain search and arrest warrants are not subject to litigation privilege in subsequent civil proceedings.
The recent Australian Federal Court decision of Yu v STX Pan Ocean Co Ltd (South Korea) in the matter of STX Pan Ocean Co Ltd (receivers appointed in South Korea) [2013] FCA 680 has the effect of allowing the arrest of a ship in Australia, despite the operation of the Cross Border Insolvency Act 2008 (Cth) which incorporates the United Nations Model Law on cross border insolvency into Australian law.