If you are in the sticky situation where you need to recover debt from a company in liquidation, you will inevitably have a lot of questions. Can I even pursue the company? Will I receive any money back? What can I do? This article will explore how the liquidation process works, what process you need to follow to recover your debt, and what you need to prove to make a successful claim.

How Does Liquidation Work?

The Federal Government has released the Exposure Draft for the much anticipated introduction of:

Assets held by an insolvent corporate trustee in its capacity as trustee may not be "property of the company".

For more than 30 years, Victoria has stood apart from the rest of Australia in how it treats the assets of an insolvent corporate trustee. That may have changed, following the Supreme Court's decision in Re Amerind Pty Ltd (receivers and managers appointed) (in liq) [2017] VSC 127.

The recent Federal Court of Australia decision of The Owners – Strata Plan No 14120 v McCarthy (No 2) [2016] FCCA 2017, demonstrates the dangers of errors in a bankruptcy notice.

In McCarthy, the Court found that when a debtor disputes the validity of a bankruptcy notice on the ground of a misstatement of the amount claimed, the debtor’s notice does not need to identify the misstatement with complete precision to render the bankruptcy notice invalid.

Maxcon Constructions Pty Ltd v Vadasz (No 2)

Significance

In a previous Legal Insight, we foreshadowed potential guidance from the ASX on the interaction between the new insolvent trading safe harbour laws and the continuous disclosure obligations of a public company.

A garnishee order is a common form of enforcing a judgment debt against a creditor to recover money. Put simply, the court directs a third party that owes money to the judgement debtor to instead pay the judgment creditor. The third party is called a ‘garnishee’. A garnishee order is a legal notice the court issues that allows the creditor to collect the amount from either:

Privilege – post Hastie

The New South Wales Court of Appeal decision in Hastie Group (In Liq.) v Moore1 underlines the view that disclosure of the mere existence of privileged documents to third parties will not necessarily waive privilege.

Key Facts

The liquidators of Hastie Group Ltd (In Liq.) (Hastie) had obtained orders extending the time for service of a statement of claim alleging professional negligence against Hastie’s Auditor, Deloitte (Auditor), between 2008 and 2010.

As you may recall, in 2013 ASIC wrote to all liquidators to announce the commencement of an industry-wide project to test all registered liquidators’ compliance with the requirement to publish certain notices on ASIC’s “published notices website” and to lodge forms with ASIC. ASIC refers to this initiative as the “PNW Project”.

The New South Wales Court of Appeal recently handed down an important judgment on the remuneration of registered liquidators.

Sakr concerned an appeal by Sanderson as liquidator of Sakr against an order determining his remuneration on anad valorem basis, without reference to his time attendances or hourly rate.  Due to the importance of the issues, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) and Australian Restructuring Insolvency and Turnaround Association (ARITA) appeared and made submissions on the issue.