Liquidators are commonly appointed to a company where, prior to liquidation the company was a trustee of a trust. Often when the liquidators are appointed, the company has ceased to be the trustee and a replacement trustee has not been appointed.

In these circumstances, the company in liquidation is a bare trustee in relation to the trust assets and the liquidator will assume this role until a replacement trustee is appointed. Often a replacement trustee is not appointed.

Does the liquidator as bare trustee have a power to sell trust assets?

When a Bank appoints a receiver under a charge, section 433 of theCorporations Act 2001 (Act) requires the proceeds of certain chargedassets to be used by the Receiver to satisfy certain employee entitlementsin priority to the Bank. Section 561 of the Act has a similar effect where acompany is in liquidation, but only if there are insufficient uncharged assets available.

The Supreme Court of Queensland decision of First Strategic Corporation Limited (In Liq) and Anor v Chan and Ors [2014] QSC 60 gives insolvency practitioners guidance as to what consideration can be taken into account when assessing the solvency of a company by the means and preparedness of someone to support the company.

Background

Secured creditors should not allow a liquidator to sell a secured asset without first:

Key Points:

The key to planning, devising and implementing a successful turnaround is having the right team in place to properly assess all relevant information, circumstances and risks.

Independent experts have become increasingly nervous on independence and process points since the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) required a replacement independent expert in Billabong, apparently based on independence concerns raised by ASIC in that case.

The decision Akers as a joint foreign representative of Saad Investments Company Limited (in Official Liquidation) v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [2014] FCAFC 57 demonstrates that Australian Courts may be willing to depart from the philosophical basis for cross border insolvency in order to protect the interests of Australian based creditors.

Background

When the liquidator of a company comes knocking on a creditor’s door, it is to echoes of "Queue jumper!" reverberating in the background. 

Essentially, one of a liquidator's first tasks when appointed is to identify whether any creditors have been given 'preferential  treatment' - that is, whether they have been paid some or all of their debt just prior to the company's liquidation and at the expense of other creditors.

In Re John Pettit Pty Limited (Subject to a Deed of Company Arrangement) [2014] NSWSC 728, the Supreme Court of NSW considered an application by the deed administrators of John Pettit Pty Ltd (John Pettit) seeking directions to sell property potentially owned by third parties and orders which limited the Deed Administrators’ personal liability in relation to the sale.

BACKGROUND

The Supreme Court of Western Australia has recently held that a creditor’s claim against a guarantor was extinguished some years earlier, under the guarantor’s deed of company arrangement (DOCA).

The reasoning behind Le Miere J’s decision in Australian Gypsum Industries Pty Ltd v Dalesun Holding Pty Ltd is that a DOCA extinguishes future liabilities arising under an agreement made prior to the execution of the DOCA. This includes those arising under pre-existing guarantees.