In the matter of Fat 4 Pty Limited (In Liquidation)

A recent case in the Supreme Court of Victoria has provided some relief for liquidators seeking to add a defendant to a voidable transaction claim after the expiry of the limitation period in circumstances where the wrong defendant was sued by mistake. In such circumstances, liquidators can substitute the incorrect party for the desired defendant without being time barred by s 588FF(3) of the Corporations Act, irrespective of whether the liquidator’s mistake as to the correct party was reasonable.

Court appointed receivers commonly assume control over all of a debtor’s property. In assuming that control, the receiver may collect various pieces of the debtor’s leased equipment, and include that equipment in a sale of the debtor’s assets. Further, the court order appointing the receiver will typically grant the receiver a priority charge over all such equipment for its fees, including the fees of its counsel, and any borrowings it may make in the course of the receivership.

One of the most vexing commercial insolvency issues is the competition between creditors with security on environmentally troubled property and environmental authorities looking for deep pockets to fix the environmental problems. From a creditor’s point of view, a recent Alberta decision is a potential respite from environmental obligations being imposed on creditors of the owners of environmentally troubled property.

On 29 February 2016, the Insolvency Law Reform Bill 2015 received Royal Assent. The resulting Act, the Insolvency Law Reform Act 2016 (Cth) represents the most significant suite of reforms to Australia’s bankruptcy and corporate insolvency laws in twenty years and is an integral component of the Federal Government’s agenda of improving economic incentives for innovation and entrepreneurialism.

In a decision handed down on 11 February 2016, the High Court has confirmed that the State Supreme Courts have jurisdiction to grant relief to plaintiffs seeking to join insurers of insolvent or potentially insolvent defendants, and a declaration that the insurer is liable to indemnify the defendant. 

Introduction

Tamaya Resources Limited (In Liq) v Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu [2016] FCAFC 2

It is common in large complex cases for plaintiffs to seek to amend their claims during the course of the litigation. A plaintiff may be required to pay the costs thrown away but if its amendment application was brought in good faith and with a proper explanation, it would usually be able to amend its claim.

On November 13, 2015, the Supreme Court rendered its decision in Lemare Lake Logging Ltd. v.

On 14 July 2015, the South Australian District Court in Matthews v The Tap Inn Pty Ltd [2015] SADC 108 handed down a decision whose underlying reasoning could, if applied by superior courts around Australia, broaden the scope for liquidators to pursue unfair preference claims against secured creditors.

The decision

Le 23 mai 2014, le juge Jean-François Émond désigne Lemieux Nolet inc. (le «Séquestre») comme séquestre de la débitrice Purgenesis Technologies inc. (la «Débitrice») et lui confère entre autres, les pouvoirs de vendre ou de disposer des actifs de la Débitrice.

Aussitôt, Monsieur Claude Moissan, syndic auprès du Séquestre, identifie les biens ainsi que les acheteurs potentiels.

Le 30 juillet 2014, un financement intérimaire est autorisé à être déboursé par Alternative Capital Group («ACG») en contrepartie duquel une charge prioritaire lui est transmise sur les actifs des débitrices Gestion Rer inc., Rer Hydro Ltd. et Hydrolienne Très Saint-Laurent Inc. (les «Débitrices»).

Peu de temps après, suite à la vérification diligente, ACG a cessé d’avancer des fonds aux Débitrices.

Le 28 août 2014, le Contrôleur met fin au mandat de ACG après avoir constaté que cette dernière n’avait alors avancé que la somme initiale de 371 000 $.