This week’s TGIF considers Re GGA Lifestyle Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed); Ex Parte Woodhouse [2019] WASC 167, where the Supreme Court of Western Australia clarified that a voluntary administrator of a company in administration is able to claim costs of care, preservation and realisation of partnership assets of the company in administration through an equitable lien in the same way liquidators can.
What happened?
The legal principles relating to execution against movable property are more or less settled, less so the law relating to execution against immovable property. This is mainly because the right to housing is enshrined in s26 of the Constitution and the issue of land has become somewhat emotive and politicised in the recent past.
This week’s TGIF considers the recent case of Halifax Investment Services Pty Ltd (In liquidation) (No 4) [2019] FCA 604 where the Federal Court granted an application by liquidators of a company to electronically publish notices required to be sent to creditors as part of their initial reporting obligations in a winding up, to save costs and time, in cir
The introduction of a safe harbour protection for company directors was one of a number of generational reforms to the restructuring landscape throughout late 2017 and 2018 aimed at relaxing Australia’s unforgiving insolvency laws.
Now that more than a year has passed, have the safe harbour reforms been a success? And what steps can directors take to ensure they obtain the protections they afford?
This week’s TGIF considers the decision in Erskine as liquidator of North Shore Property Developments Pty Ltd (in liq) v 72-74 Gordon Crescent Lane Cove Pty Ltd [2019] FCAFC 62, where a determination was upheld that Courts should not go behind a deed of release entered into by a liquidator without a valid basis for doing so.
This week’s TGIF considers a recent decision of the Victorian Court of Appeal where a company’s creditors successfully opposed an application by the company’s liquidators to compromise proceedings commenced on the company’s behalf.
This week’s TGIF takes a look at the recent case of Mills Oakley (a partnership) v Asset HQ Australia Pty Ltd [2019] VSC 98, where the Supreme Court of Victoria found the statutory presumption of insolvency did not arise as there had not been effective service of a statutory demand due to a typographical error in the postal address.
What happened?
This week’s TGIF examines a decision of the Victorian Supreme Court which found that several proofs had been wrongly admitted or rejected, and had correct decisions been made, the company would not have been put into liquidation.
BACKGROUND
In many, if not all, commercial transactions, timing is everything, either for a distressed seller or a purchaser stumbling upon a deal that may almost be too good to be true. There is often no time to waste and a deal must be closed as soon as possible. In the haste of closing a deal, whether in the form of a sale of business or a sale of assets, the parties often agree not to comply with the provisions of s34(1) of the Insolvency Act, No 24 of 1936 (Act), each willing to take the risk in not doing so.
Section 34(1) of the Act provides that:
This week’s TGIF considers a recent decision of the Victorian Court of Appeal where a company’s creditors successfully opposed an application by the company’s liquidators to compromise proceedings commenced on the company’s behalf.