A recent Victorian case has worrying implications for financiers and creditors.

A decision of the Victorian Court of Appeal in Vasudevan v Becon Constructions (Australia) Pty Ltd [2014] VSCA 14 has the potential to significantly broaden the power of a liquidator to attack a company transaction under section 588FDA of the Corporations Act 2001 (Act) where there are ‘indirect benefits’ to a director or close associate of a director of the company.

In the decision of Saker, in the matter of Great Southern Limited[2014] FCA 771, the Federal Court of Australia held that statutory obligations, not trust obligations, require receivers and liquidators to hold and apply funds for the benefit of employees pursuant to s 561 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

FACTS

Introduction

The approach of the courts to public examinations conducted by liquidators has in recent times arguably tended towards granting increasing liberty to liquidators in the scope of their examinations.

In Stewart v Atco Controls Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) [2014] HCA 15, the High Court of Australia recently delivered a decision which has confirmed the priority of a Liquidator’s lien over the interests of a secured creditor.

The facts

In Australian Building Systems Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation [2014] FCA 116, the Federal Court held that liquidators do not have an obligation to retain an amount for the payment of tax of a portion of the proceeds from the sale of property owned by the company before liquidation when no tax assessment has been issued. However, Justice Logan made clear that a prudent liquidator would be entitiled to retain the gain until an advice or assessment from the Commissioner, was issued.

Background

The recent case of Young, Jr, in the matter of Buccaneer Energy Limited v Buccaneer Energy Limited [2014] FCA 711 considered the concept of “the centre of main interests”, described in the Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (United Nations General Assembly Resolution A/RES/52/158 (1997)). Senior Associate, Sarah Drinkwater and Associate, Tim Logan discuss.

Application

The recent decision of the Federal Court in Canadian Solar (Australia) Pty Ltd v ACN 138 535 832 Pty Ltd (subject to deed of company arrangement) [2014] FCA 783, is a useful reminder that a deed of company arrangement (DOCA) approved by a majority of creditors at the second creditors meeting can still be terminated by order of the Court if it is found to be unfairly prejudicial to one or more creditors or contrary to the interests of creditors as a whole. 

Key Points:

This case presented a difficult and unique set of circumstances for the court to navigate while the scheme clock was ticking.

The recent approval of the David Jones scheme of arrangement demonstrates how, in the absence of shareholder opposition, the inexorability of a scheme timetable can cause problems for a court when there is a major development after the first court hearing.

In Kisimul Holdings Pty Ltd v Clear Position Pty Ltd, a decision seemingly inconsistent with established law, the Supreme Court of NSW earlier this year held that an omission in the affidavit supporting a statutory demand did not amount to “some other reason why the demand should be set aside”. The NSW Court of Appeal has now reversed the decision, restoring a degree of certainty in this much-litigated area of law.

The Law