This week’s TGIF considers a recent application to the Queensland Supreme Court for judicial advice as to whether certain proofs of debt should be rejected due to the rule against double proofs.

Background

This week’s TGIF examines a recent decision of the NSW Supreme Court which considered whether funds held in certain bank accounts of a failed Ponzi scheme should be returned to investors or paid to creditors of the companies.

What happened?

Since freezing orders were obtained by ASIC in 2017, details surrounding the infamous Courtenay House ‘Ponzi’ scheme operated from a small office at Westfield in Bondi have slowly emerged.

This week’s TGIF article considers the case of Kelly, in the matter of Halifax Investment Services Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (No 5) [2019] FCA 1341, in which liquidators of two linked investment companies in Australia and New Zealand sought to hold concurrent hearings in the Federal Court and in the High Court of New Zealand.

What happened?

It is well known that a company served with a statutory demand has 21 days to comply. If the recipient fails to pay the amount of the demand (or obtain a court order extending the period for compliance) within the period of 21 days after the demand is served, the creditor may rely on the failure as a basis to apply for the company to be wound up in insolvency. But what if the company pays, or seeks to pay, the amount of the statutory demand after the 21 day period has expired?

Like many areas of insolvency law, statutory demands have strict procedural requirements as to the timing by which documents must be served. But how is the passage of time calculated? If something is required to be done "21 days after" a document is served, is this intended to be inclusive or exclusive of the day the document was served? The Supreme Court of NSW recently grappled with this issue in Verimark Pty Ltd v Passiontree Velvet Pty Ltd [2019] NSWSC 455 and has provided clarity for lawyers and insolvency practitioners alike.

The decision of the High Court of Australia in Ramsay Health Care Australia Pty Ltd v Compton [2017] HCA 28; 261 CLR 132 (Ramsay) clarified the limits of a Bankruptcy Court's discretion to "go behind" a judgment, that is, to investigate whether the underlying debt relied upon for the making of a sequestration order is, in truth and reality, owing to the petitioning creditor. Recently, the Ramsay decision was applied by the Federal Court of Australia in Dunkerley v Comcare [2019] FCA 1002 (Dunkerley).

This week’s TGIF considers the decision in Dudley (Liquidator) v RHG Construction Fitout & Maintenance Pty Ltd [2019] FCA 1355, which serves as a reminder of the steps to be taken before commencing a ‘mothership’ preference claim proceeding.

This week’s TGIF considers a refusal by the Federal Court to declare void or terminate a DOCA on the grounds of alleged prejudice & injustice or due to omissions in the administrator’s report to creditors.

Background

R Developments Pty Ltd (the Builder) operated a residential construction business and entered into a contract for the construction of a residential property in 2012.

This week’s TGIF considers the circumstances in which a special purpose liquidator will be appointed to investigate claims the liquidator has already determined are ‘not viable’ in the decision in Williams & Kersten Pty Ltd v Walton Constructions (Qld) Pty Ltd (in liq), in the matter of Walton Constructions (Qld) Pty Ltd (in liq)

This week’s TGIF considers the Federal Court decisions in Carrello, in the matter of Caneland Holdings Pty Ltd (in liq) [2019] FCA 1144, and Carrello, in the matter of Gembrook Investments Pty Ltd (in liq) [2019] FCA 1143. The Court provided guidance as to how a liquidator of an insolvent corporate trustee should ensure payment of their remuneration and expenses out of trust assets.

Background