Summary
In Carey v Korda [2012] WASCA 228, the Western Australian Supreme Court of Appeal (Court) has provided a timely confirmation that legal advisers engaged by receivers to provide advice in relation to a receivership are properly viewed as advisers to the receivers as principal, and not the mortgagor company.
The decision will no doubt be welcomed by insolvency practitioners, as it confirms that the legal advice, and the right to invoke the associated privilege, belongs to the receivers, not the mortgagor company.
The recent Federal Court of Australia (Court) decision in KASH Aboriginal Corporation ICN 108 (Administrators Appointed) No 2 [2012] FCA 789 confirms that an administrator of a company who acts honestly and reasonably may be protected from personal liability for any debts incurred while carrying out an administration.
Background
The evidence before the court established that:
In a recent decision[1] the Supreme Court of Western Australia was asked, pursuant to section 447A of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), to appoint a special purpose administrator to cure a perceived conflict of interest between a company (in administration) and the original administrator appointed to the company.
Changes to the Listing Rules and further consultation on enhancing the effectiveness of the regime
On 31 August 2012, the Full Federal Court handed down its much awaited decision in Commissioner of Taxation v Kassem and Secatore [2012] FCAFC 124 which provides clarification regarding third party preference payments received by the ATO and the practice of the ATO appropriating payments made by taxpayers from one account (ie the integrated client account) to another (ie the superannuation guarantee account - SGER).
Summary
The main points to take away from this case are as follows:
On 19 September 2012, the Norton Rose Construction and Engineering team presented a breakfast briefing titled: “Financial Distress in Construction Projects: What happens when the wheels fall off?”
This briefing identified the warnings signs of insolvency, what steps parties can take to minimise exposure, how best to respond to a party’s insolvency and the options available to prevent insolvency in the first place.
The recent Supreme Court of Victoria decision in Re National Personnel Pty Ltd (in liquidation) [2012] VSC 508 confirms that the Court will take a broad approach in determining the true employer where the employer-employee relationship is confused and the liquidator is in doubt as to the identification of the employer.
Background
Who should bear the risk and ultimately the financial burden of insolvent wrongdoers when determining the liability of defendants to a plaintiff? The defendants, or the plaintiff?
The Law Commission revisits this question in an Issues Paper, published last week, after recommending in 1998 to retain the traditional position.1
A creditor with assets in England should refrain from involvement in a foreign insolvency proceeding if it is at risk of being sued in the foreign court.