Summary

On 24 August 2017, Messrs Park, Olde and Hansell were appointed joint and several administrators of SurfStitch Group Limited. Prior to their appointment, two shareholder class actions were commenced against SurfStitch. The administrators identified 3,313 shareholders who may be potential group members in the class actions.

This week’s TGIF considers the case ofIn the matter of Bean and Sprout Pty Ltd [2018] NSWSC 351, an application seeking a declaration as to the validity of the appointment of a voluntary administrator.

What happened?

On 7 December 2018, Mr Kong Yao Chin (Chin) was purportedly appointed as the voluntary administrator of Bean and Sprout Pty Ltd (Company) by a resolution of the Company.

What you need to know in light of Seymour Whyte Constructions Pty Ltd v Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd (in liq)

The NSW Supreme Court recently handed down its decision in the matter of Seymour Whyte Constructions Pty Ltd v Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd (in liq); Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd (in liq) v Seymour Whyte Constructions Pty Ltd [2018] NSWSC 412, in which K&L Gates represented Seymour Whyte. The decision sheds light on numerous issues, including:

Reforms to insolvency laws will prevent contracting parties relying on certain clauses in construction contracts effective from 1 July 2018.

The reforms introduce changes to the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and are likely to impact significantly on construction contracts.

A recent Federal Court decision puts administrators on notice that they must carefully consider the consequences of dealing with other people’s assets.

The decision of Justice Perram in White, in the matter of Mossgreen Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) [2018] FCA 471, highlights the care that administrators must take when administering property outside the scope of their authority.

In Mossgreen, administrators were appointed to a company that conducted a business that ran an auction house and gallery.

By now, most accountants are likely to have heard about, and perhaps have some familiarity with, the new “safe harbour” laws. But for those accountants who still feel unsure about their knowledge of these new provisions, the following article will help you get your head around what safe harbour means for your accounting practice.

How safe harbour fits into the existing law

The Queensland Court of Appeal has upheld an appeal by the liquidators of Linc Energy Limited (In Liquidation) (“Linc”) and given full effect to their disclaimer of contaminated mining property and onerous obligations the subject of an environmental protection order (“EPO”) issued by the Queensland Department of Environment and Science (“DES”).[1]

The liquidators were not bound to cause Linc to comply with the EPO from the date of the disclaimer.

This week’s TGIF is the first of a two-part series considering Commonwealth v Byrnes [2018] VSCA 41, the Victorian Court of Appeal’s decision on appeal from last year’s Re Amerind decision about the insolvency of corporate trustees.

This first part looks closely at what the Court of Appeal did – and did not – decide in relation to how receivers and liquidators should deal with property recovered pursuant to an insolvent corporate trustee’s right of indemnity.