The latest wave of reforms to hit the construction industry in Queensland is causing more than just a ripple. You can now be automatically excluded from acting as a director or senior manager of a construction company for 3 years, even if you are not at fault.

You can lose your livelihood quickly

The construction game has always been competitive and risky. There are traps everywhere. Despite this, people still tend to be surprised and upset when things go bad.

This week’s TGIF considers the case of In the matter of Idoport Pty Limited (in liquidation) [2015] NSWSC 1412 in which the Court reinforced that a reluctance to give directions to a liquidator in respect of commercial matters is qualified in respect of matters which are capable of giving rise to a legal controversy.

What happened?

The High Court of Australia has confirmed that Australian Supreme Courts have the power to make orders freezing the Australian assets of a foreign company in anticipation of a possible judgment in a foreign court being obtained against that foreign company.

Background

Freezing orders and the Foreign Judgments Act

Freezing orders (also known as Mareva orders or Mareva injunctions) are oft-used tools available to a plaintiff to preserve the assets of a defendant, where there is a danger of the defendant absconding or of the assets being removed from the jurisdiction or otherwise diminished. Such dangers put in peril the ability of a plaintiff to recover any favourable judgment against that defendant.

Since the Global Financial Crisis it has been increasingly common for parties involved in property settlement disputes to be fighting over property with a net negative value or, in extreme cases, for one party to be declared bankrupt.

Despite common perception, a spouse being declared bankrupt in the middle of court proceedings for property settlement does not automatically end the proceedings or mean that the bankrupt’s assets are put out of reach of the other spouse in a property settlement.

The unanimous decision by the Full Court of the Federal Court in Templeton v Australian and Securities Investments Commission [2015] FCAFC 137 confirms that the concept of proportionality is a well-recognised factor in considering the question of reasonable remuneration for an insolvency practitioner, and that, in assessing a remuneration claim, the Court can take into account the quality and complexity of the work as well as the value and nature of any property dealt with and the time reasonably spent.

With continuing market volatility a number of companies remain under financial pressure. Businesses or individuals receiving payments from companies that might be financially distressed should be aware of the ability of a liquidator to apply to a court under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act) to recover payments made to creditors in the six months prior to the appointment of a liquidator/administrator on the grounds the payment constituted an “unfair preference”.

Quick Recap on the Relevant Provisions

Baker & McKenzie Alert Client Alert 28 SEPTEMBER 2015 Download Forward Contact Us Visit Our Website Providing the Commissioner of Taxation with access to records - even liquidators cannot escape Need to know The Federal Court has recently determined that when the Commissioner of Taxation is a creditor of a company in liquidation, he or she is not required to obtain a court order under section 486 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act), unlike all other creditors, before requiring the Liquidator to make available the company's records for inspection.

A recent case[1] is a reminder to creditors in a voluntary winding up that the Court has the power to appoint an additional or special purpose liquidator (SPL) to carry out a set function in the orderly liquidation of a company where it is 'just and beneficial' to do so.

What is a special purpose liquidator?

Introduction

The Full Court of the Federal Court has given some important guidance on the calculation of remuneration for court appointed receivers.  In its decision in Templeton v Australian Securities and Investment Commission the Court has highlighted the importance of proportionality in determining reasonable remuneration.

General Position