The issue of how causation can be established has been one significant debate in Australian securities class actions involving alleged breaches of the Corporations Act by corporations. It has been unresolved whether shareholders must prove individual reliance on the contravening conduct of companies, or if the conduct affects the market price of shares purchased and/or sold by shareholders is sufficient.

Section 440D imposes a stay on “proceedings in a court” against a company whilst it is in administration under Part 5.3A of the Corporations Act. It is well established that the term “proceedings in a court” does not include an arbitration proceeding: see Larkden Pty Limited v Lloyd Energy Systems Pty Limited [2011] NSWSC 1305 at [42] (Hammerschlag J). Notwithstanding this, can the Court use its general power to make orders under s447A to extend the reach of s440D in order to impose a stay on an arbitration against a company in administration?

By its much anticipated yet hardly surprising judgment in Forge Group Power Pty Limited (in liquidation)(receivers and managers appointed) v General Electric International Inc  [2016] NSWSC 52, the Supreme Court of New South Wales has again shone a bright light on the importance of perfection of security interests under the PPSA, and the dramatic consequences that follow for failing to do so by reason of the PPSA vesting rules.  Indeed, the failure to register in this case has had multi-million dollar consequences.

The decision in Adhesive Pro Pty Ltd v Blackrock Supplies Pty Ltd [2015] ACTSC 288 reinforces the strict rule that an application to set aside a statutory demand must be filed and served within 21 days of receiving the demand.

Statutory demands are a common and useful tool for many unsecured creditors seeking payment of a debt.  Non-compliance with a statutory demand results in a presumption of insolvency and the possibility that a creditor can apply to wind up a company debtor.

The Insolvency Law Reform Bill 2015 has been introduced into Parliament as part of the Australian Government's strategy to modernise and strengthen the nation's insolvency and corporate reorganisation framework.

The recent Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia decision of Templeton v Australian Securities and Investment Commission [2015] FCAFC 137 has considered the application of 'proportionality' in determining receivers' remuneration.

Freezing orders and the Foreign Judgments Act

Freezing orders (also known as Mareva orders or Mareva injunctions) are oft-used tools available to a plaintiff to preserve the assets of a defendant, where there is a danger of the defendant absconding or of the assets being removed from the jurisdiction or otherwise diminished. Such dangers put in peril the ability of a plaintiff to recover any favourable judgment against that defendant.

Update on McCabes' article " 'Are we there yet' - When are proceedings over for the purposes of enforcement"

The High Court of Australia has refused an application for special leave to appeal the decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia in Sarks v Cassegrain [2015] FCAFC 38, confirming that a judgment issued by the Court on the basis of filing of a certificate of costs assessment is a "final judgment" for the purposes of s 40(1)(g) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) and can therefore ground a bankruptcy notice.

Introduction

The Full Court of the Federal Court has given some important guidance on the calculation of remuneration for court appointed receivers.  In its decision in Templeton v Australian Securities and Investment Commission the Court has highlighted the importance of proportionality in determining reasonable remuneration.

General Position

It is not uncommon for companies served with wind up proceedings to appoint external administrators for the purposes of investigating the affairs of the company and so that recommendations can be made to creditors to either have the company wound up, execute a deed of company arrangement or hand the company back into the control of directors.

In circumstances where the administrators conclude that the company should be wound up, it is common for the administrators to seek to be appointed as the official liquidators of the company.