In SJG Developments Pty Ltd v NT Two Nominees Pty Ltd (in liq),[1] the Supreme Court of Queensland set aside a statutory demand served by the liquidators of NT Two Nominees Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (NT Two Nominees) on SJG Developments Pty Ltd (SJG). Costs were awarded on the indemnity basis and more significantly, were also ordered against the liquidators personally.
In the recent Gunns decisions, the Federal Court considered three separate unfair preference claims brought by the liquidators of Gunns Limited (in Liquidation) (Gunns) against:
This is a service specifically targeted at the needs of busy non-executive directors. We aim to give you a “heads up” on the things that matter for NEDs in the week ahead – all in two minutes or less.
In this Edition, we consider another recent Panel decision in the insolvency context, RBA’s comments on Australian economic outlook and the looming “return to normal” for regulators as the COVID-19 pandemic continues to drag on.
YOUR KEY BOARDROOM BRIEF
Recent changes to the Property Law Act 1974 (Qld) (Act) have simplified the process for mortgagees exercising power of sale and do away with the need for a Court order.
Previously, a mortgagee was required to apply to a Court for a vesting order allowing it to exercise power of sale and to dispense with the requirement to give a Notice of Exercise of Power of Sale to the mortgagor.
Ford (Administrator), in the matter of The PAS Group Limited (Administrators Appointed) v Scentre Management Limited [2020] FCA 1023
In Yeo, in the matter of Ready Kit Cabinets Pty Ltd (in liq) v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation,[1] the Court considered whether payments made to the Deputy Commission of Taxation (DCT) by a director of the company, required under a Deed of Company Arrangement (DOCA) were recoverable as unfair preferences.
On 13 December 2019, in Franz Boensch as Trustee of the Boensch Trust v Scott Darren Pascoe[1] the High Court unanimously dismissed an appeal from a judgment of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia, in which the appellant sought compensation from his former trustee in bankruptcy pursuant to section 74P of the Real Property Act 1900 (NSW) (RPA).
Whilst the power of a chairperson to exercise a casting vote at creditors’ meetings is a useful mechanism to resolve a deadlock in voting, it does not confer unconstrained discretion. The recent Glenfyne Appeal[1] provides valuable guidance as to the appropriate exercise of a casting vote and also serves as a reminder of the Court’s significant powers to review and reverse failed creditors’ resolutions due to the exercise of a casting vote.
The transaction involved the restructuring of certain loan facilities via creditors' schemes of arrangement (Schemes). Prior to implementation, the Schemes terminated automatically by their terms as certain required payments had not been made by the relevant condition precedent satisfaction date.