Where a creditor of an insolvent company set conditions for its merger and advised its board of directors on its post-merger operations and finances, held that this was not sufficient to render it a shadow director of the company:

- Buzzle Operations Pty Ltd (in liq) v Apply Computer Australia Pty Ltd [2011] NSWCA 109 (Australia, New South Wales Court of Appeal, 9 May 2011)

Introduction

New Zealand liquidators have had their powers recognised in Australia in a series of recent ground-breaking judgments.

These decisions in respect of Northern Crest Investments Limited, a New Zealand registered company listed on the ASX, demonstrate the broad powers which the courts are willing to provide to foreign representatives under the Cross-Border Insolvency Act 2008 (Cth) (the CBIA).

Obtaining powers of Australian liquidators

Key Points: The High Court held there was no variation in the terms of the Charge and therefore no registration was required.

On 1 September 2010 the High Court handed down its much anticipated decision in the appeal from the Queensland Court of Appeal in Re Octaviar Ltd (No 7) [2009] QCA 282, unanimously dismissing the appeal in Public Trustee of Queensland v Fortress Credit Corporation (Aus) 11 Pty Ltd [2010] HCA 29.

The fixed and floating charge

Your insurer goes bust – can you as an insured claim the reinsurance proceeds? An important decision in the NSW Supreme Court gives useful guidance on when a court will allow departures from the statutory scheme controlling the application of reinsurance proceeds (Amaca Pty Ltd v McGrath & Anor as liquidators of HIH Underwriting and Insurance (Australia) Pty Ltd [2011] NSWSC 90).

The insurer goes broke, and there are all these claimants at the door…

The Supreme Court of Victoria has recently given some guidance on when a secured creditor who is entitled to enforce a charge over "the whole, or substantially the whole of the company's property" can validly appoint a company administrator.

Everyone loves a bargain – accordingly, there is a lot of interest when liquidators and other insolvency practitioners put a business up for sale. Purchasers jostle like shoppers in the Myer stocktake sale, trying to position themselves as the perfect purchaser. At the same time they try to convey their concern about the value of the business or assets – everyone expects a discount for a distressed business.

In brief

A recent decision by the New South Wales Court of Appeal in Buzzle Operations Pty Ltd (in liq) –v- Apple Computer Australia Pty Ltd [2011] NSWCA 109 provides useful guidance on the key aspects of shadow directorships and to what extent advices can be given by an interested party such as a financial accountant or a lender to a debtor without that interested party falling within the definition of "shadow director".

Background

In insolvency circles, the word "success" is definitely a relative term. Often it only means that a complete meltdown of the company's business has been averted, or that employees have at least received their statutory entitlements on their way out the door.

The ABC Learning Centre story has, however, definitely been a success by any measure – including some measures which are not generally part of the metrics of insolvency.[1] In order to see why this insolvency administration deal was both unique and uniquely successful, it is necessary to understand some of the background.

Our clients must be sick to death about hearing us comment on the Australian Sons of Gwalia saga (which we have been doing for more than three years) but finally there is good news to report. The short version of the saga is thatSons of Gwalia was a decision by Australia's highest court that shareholder damages claims should be treated as pari passu unsecured claims in an Australian insolvency proceeding.

Under section 449E(2) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), the Court may review the remuneration of the administrator of a company on the application of the administrator. In the recent decision of Paul’s Retail Pty Ltd v Morgan, the New South Wales Court of Appeal considered the issue of whether an administrator could be precluded from access to the abovementioned statutory provision for the review by the Court of remuneration already determined.

The Facts