Litigation funding can play an important role in allowing liquidators to recover debts on behalf of liquidated companies, where there may be a real prospect of success in recovery proceedings but where obstacles such as funding or security for costs may present themselves.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals recently issued an opinion that potentially broadens the proximate cause element of claims brought under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). RICO’s proximate cause element requires a plaintiff to allege facts plausibly establishing that there is a “direct relationship” between the claimed injury and the defendant’s conduct in violation of RICO.

InAustralian Securities and Investments Commission v Marco (no 9) [2021] FCA 1306 the Administrators brought an interlocutory application seeking remuneration orders pursuant to section 60-10(1)(c) of the Insolvency Practice Schedule (IPSC) for the administration of the second defendant. The application was opposed by the Liquidators of the second defendant.

In Anchorage Capital Master Offshore Ltd v Sparkes (No 3); Bank of Communications Co Ltd v Sparkes (No 2),[1] the NSW Supreme Court handed down judgment in two proceedings (which were heard together) arising from the failure of Arrium and its broader corporate group.

The year is 2012, and the biotech you founded has just received FDA approval for a wildly promising product with significant differentiation from other products in its class. You only have 35 employees, but begin to build a lean, incentive-based salesforce to launch your novel commercialization strategy built on a specialty distribution model, high-touch reimbursement support, aggressive marketing tactics, and premium pricing. Hiring a compliance officer is not a priority at this time.

In LCM Operations Pty Ltd, in the matter of 316 Group Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) [2021] FCA 324, the Federal Court considered whether a third party who has been assigned a company’s claim by a liquidator breached the Harman undertaking with respect to documents obtained through public examinations.

What happened?

Section 440A(2) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the Act) requires the Court to adjourn a winding up application if it is satisfied that it would be in the best interest of creditors for the company to continue under administration rather than be wound up.

Hughes, in the matter of Substar Holdings Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (No. 2) (Substar No. 2) considers the Court’s discretionary power to terminate the winding up of a company pursuant to s 482(1) of the Corporations Act 2001. Substar No. 2 follows the decision of Hughes, in the matter of Substar Holdings Pty Ltd (in liquidation) [2020] FCA 1863(Substar (No. 1), which considered the extent to which liquidators can realise trust assets when a corporate trustee enters into liquidation.

In Re Dessco Pty Ltd, the Victorian Supreme Court adjourned a winding up application for 50 days to allow time for creditors to vote on a restructuring plan.

Whilst the adjournment was opposed by the Plaintiff, the Judicial Registrar of the Court accepted the assessment formed by the Small Business Restructuring Practitioner that the company was eligible to avail itself of the new regime having regard to the criteria that must be satisfied (and the ‘just estimate’ approach adopted in respect of contingent liabilities) and the interests of the company’s creditors.

A mortgagee may be faced with a situation where the mortgagor becomes bankrupt and the trustee, in which the property then vests, disclaims the mortgaged property. By force of a trustee’s disclaimer, the bankrupt’s fee simple estate escheats to the Crown in the right of the State. When the Registrar of Titles receives a notice of disclaimer from a trustee, a Registrar’s caveat will be recorded over the property.