The Federal Court in Hema Maps Pty Ltd v HemaX Digital Pty Ltd, in the matter of HemaX Digital Pty Ltd [2024] FCA 1127, appointed a provisional liquidator to preserve the status quo until the determination of a winding up application. This winding up application was due to a deadlock and an irreparable breakdown in relations between shareholders, and mismanagement of the company.
Key Takeaways
The Federal Court of Australia recently handed down a landmark judgment against a third party adviser for devising an asset-stripping scheme and breaching the creditor-defeating disposition provisions of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).
In Morgan v McMillan Investment Holdings Pty Ltd [2024] HCA 33, the High Court had to consider whether a right to sue held by companies in liquidation could provide the required gateway for a pooling order under s 579E(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).
Key Takeaways
Did you know that bankruptcy trustees are now liable for capital gains tax (CGT) on the sale of real property? Section 254 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth) imposes specific obligations on trustees and agents, covering income, profits, and gains of a capital nature in their representative capacity. This has recently taken on new importance for bankruptcy trustees.
What has changed?
If a tenant appoints a voluntary administrator, the Corporations Act protects the administrator from Landlords who would otherwise be able to re-enter the premises.
It is important to act decisively to recover possession of your premises before an administrator is appointed.
Preparing a business for an exit can be a complex and time-consuming task.
This week’s TGIF considers a recent Federal Court of Australia decision (Connelly (liquidator) v Papadopoulos, in the matter of TSK QLD Pty Ltd (in liq) [2024] FCA 888). In the case, it was determined that a restructuring adviser who engineered an asset-stripping scheme may be found liable for the full value of the loss arising out of the scheme.
Key Takeaways
Chris Pearce, Blackwall Legal LLP
This is an extract from the 2025 edition of GRR's The Asia-Pacific Restructuring Review. The whole publication is available here.
This is an Insight article, written by a selected partner as part of GRR's co-published content. Read more on Insight
In summary
In a recent decision by the Supreme Court of New South Wales regarding unfair preference claims - In the matter of Pacific Plumbing Group Pty Limited (in liquidation) [2024] NSWSC 525 – Justice Black provides guidance to liquidators on what is required to recover payments made to a third party on behalf of an insolvent company as unfair preferences.
In particular, the case highlighted that a liquidator has the burden of proof to show that: