The recent Federal Magistrate’s decision in Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Oswal [2012] FMCA 1082 reminds us that leaving a jurisdiction does not mean leaving your business behind, including the business of paying debts.
Background
Mr Oswal guaranteed a loan of $27 million from the Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA) to Garuda Aviation Pty Ltd (Garuda) for the purchase of a jet plane. Mr Oswal was, and remains, a director of Garuda.
In Carey v Korda [2012] WASCA 228, the Supreme Court of Western Australia Court of Appeal confirmed the rights of receivers to claim legal professional privilege. A little over a year ago, we considered the first instance judgment in a previous TGIF article.
THE BACKGROUND FACTS
A recent High Court judgment illustrates potential issues when the same liquidator(s) are appointed to Australian and New Zealand companies.
Australian liquidators were appointed to the Cedenco group of companies, two of which were New Zealand companies and three Australian. They sought orders requiring delivery of documents and for the companies’ relationship manager at ANZ to attend for a second examination. One of the arguments against this was that the New Zealand companies' creditors were likely to be paid in full.
Residential aged care has recently been in the news for all the wrong reasons, with headlines due to the particularly heavy impact of COVID-19 on this sector, the interim findings of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety and the alarming declaration by Leading Age Services Australia that a pre-COVID-19 accounting review indicating that almost 200 nursing homes housing some 50,000 people were operating at an unacceptably high risk of insolvency – a finding supported by the recently released report by the Aged Care Financing Authority (ACFA) which found “near
A case this week in New South Wales involving a dispute between the residents of a retirement village and the operator of a retirement village reminded us of some of the issues that can arise when a village goes into liquidation.
The Federal Government has announced its intention to amend the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act) in response to the three-member panel's review of the FW Act in August this year, which we analysed in our earlier article.
Section 254 of the ITAA imposes obligations on agents and trustees concerning income, profit or gains of a capital nature.
Application of the section extends to liquidators, receivers and administrators by virtue of the extended definition given to the term "trustee" in section 6(1) of the ITAA.
Section 254 provides that agents and trustees are:
The recent Supreme Court of Victoria decision in Lofthouse v Environmental Consultants International Pty Ltd & Ors [2012] VSC 416 outlines the factors the Court will take into account when considering whether to make a pooling order and considers when a liquidator may be remunerated out of the assets of pooled companies.
Background
NSW GOVERNMENT CONSIDERS HOW TO PROTECT SUB-CONTRACTORS, 25 OCTOBER 2012
A Discussion and Issues Paper Inquiry into construction industry insolvency in NSW (Issues Paper) has been released and is currently available for comment as the NSW Government attempts to progress its agenda to safeguard the interests of sub-contractors in the construction industry.
The Federal Government has proposed a major strengthening of APRA’s crisis management powers and has released a consultation paper containing wide-ranging proposals for financial services reform that are now open to industry comment.