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

Fortress Credit Corporation (Australia) II Pty Ltd v Fletcher [2011] FACFC 89 concerned the powers of liquidators in Australia.  In 2009, joint liquidators were appointed to Octaviar Limited (Octaviar) and Octaviar Administration (Funder).  Fortress claimed to be a secured creditor of Octaviar under a charge, and was owed approximately $71 million.  The liquidators arranged for Octaviar and the Funder to enter into funding agreements that provided for the Funder to fund an investigation into the actions of Fortress and to commence litigation against Fortress.

In Saker, in the matter of Great Southern Managers Australia Ltd (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (in liquidation), the plaintiffs were the liquidators of Great Southern Managers of Australia Limited (GSMAL).

The recent English decision in the Australian liquidation, New Cap Reinsurance Corpn Ltd (in liquidation) and another v Grant and others (available here), has further opened up the possibility for New Zealand insolvency proceedings to be recognised and enforced in the United Kingdom. 

In the recent case of Dwyer & Ors and Davies & Ors v Chicago Boot Co Pty Ltd [2011] SASC 27, Chicago Boot claimed that certain payments made to it by two insolvent companies were not unfair preference payments, because of, amongst other defences, the purported application of a retention of title clause in relation to the supply of goods by Chicago Boot.

The Australian unit trust industry recently experienced financial difficulties. The formal legal process of handling those difficulties has revealed gaps in the Australian regulatory map.

This article highlights some of those problems and the Government’s response to them.

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

The New South Wales Supreme Court decision in Rapid Metal Developments (Aust) Pty Ltd v Rildean Pty Ltd (No 3) examined the Australian statutory provision that is broadly equivalent to s 32(5) of the Receiverships Act (NZ).