The Federal Court of Australia recently considered the Court’s discretionary power to provide assistance to a foreign trustee (Hong Kong) in bankruptcy, by way of appointing a receiver over divisible property located in Australia in the case of Lees v O’Dea (No 2) [2014] FCA 1082.  It also continued the ongoing focus on practitioner’s remuneration, an issue which has attracted some attention in various state courts.

Background

An often complicated and at times mysterious issue that arises for practitioners and their lawyers in the insolvency space is how one should approach trusts and trust assets. This year, there have been at least three Supreme Court of New South Wales decisions (all, incidentally, delivered by Justice Brereton) that may provide some much needed judicial guidance on the matter.

Paragraph 71 of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act allows an administrator to apply to court to sell assets subject to a fixed charge as if they were not subject to the security. The case of O’Connell v Rollings and others [2014] EWCA Civ 639 is a rare illustration of such an application and provides useful guidance on the factors the court will take into account.

The background

We have become used to a regular stream of decisions in which the courts are prepared to grant administration or winding up orders in respect of overseas companies which have COMI or an establishment in the UK. The decision inRe Buccament Bay Limited and another [2014] EWCH 3130 is a rare exception in which the court has refused to exercise its discretion.

The background

Re: Joe & Joe Developments Pty Ltd (subject to a Deed of Company Arrangement) [2014] NSWSC 1444

Recently, Courts have increased focus on the appropriateness of expenditure (including legal fees) incurred by insolvency practitioners and the steps they should undertake to determine if the costs and expenses are reasonable. Warren Jiear, Partner and Tim Logan, Associate look at a case handed down on 22 October 2014 that considered these issues and the implications for practitioners.

The PPF is going ahead with the new insolvency scoring system developed by Experian.

It is also raising its requirements for contingent asset guarantees.

Partnerships which are breaking up face a series of urgent problems – particularly where the business itself is becoming insolvent. These difficulties can be amplified by failing relationships between the partners (who have to work together to wind up the business) and the potential need to realise assets rapidly to stave off the appointment of liquidators.

Heads of Terms’ or ‘Memoranda of Agreement’ (“MoA”) are commonly agreed by parties as a precursor to entering into more substantial agreements.

MoA are often intended by the parties to be broad statement  of commercial intent to enter into a contract, rather than having contractual force themselves. Accordingly, MoA are often drafted with a more relaxed attitude towards their contents

However, no matter what the parties may have intended, a MoA can easily amount to a contract depending on its drafting, exposing the parties to unintended liabilities.

Senior Associate, Sarah Drinkwater, Associate, Tim Logan and Paralegal, Erin Donald discuss the recent case of AAA Financial Intelligence Ltd (in liquidation) ACN 093 616 445 [2014] NSWSC 1004.

The facts

The applicants were the Liquidators of AAA Financial Intelligence Ltd (in liquidation) (the Company).

In Akers (as a joint foreign representative of Saad Investments Company Ltd) (in official liquidation) (a company registered in the Cayman Islands) v DCT [2014]FCAFC 57 the Federal Court of Australia recently upheld an earlier landmarkdecision concerning the proper construction and interpretation of the Model Lawon Cross Border Insolvency on the United Nations Commission on InternationalTrade Law, made part of Aust