In a decision of interest to both secured creditors and liquidators, the High Court has now overturned a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria that found a liquidator was not entitled to an equitable lien to secure his reasonable costs in obtaining a settlement sum.

On 7 May 2014, the High Court handed down its eagerly anticipated decision on the scope of the liquidator’s equitable lien in Stewart v Atco Controls Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) [2014] HCA 15.

I           INTRODUCTION

The ultimate aim of the Bankruptcy Act 1996 (Cth) is to provide a fair and orderly process for the administration of the affairs of a debtor.  In many circumstances the debtor may attempt to avoid his obligations to some or all of his creditors.  The Bankruptcy Act recognises this and has long had provisions which empower trustees in bankruptcy to recover certain assets of a bankrupt.  The two types of powers given to the trustee are where:

In DSG Holdings Australia Pty Ltd v Helenic Pty Ltd [2014] NSWCA 96, the Court of Appeal considered the meaning of the “interests of the creditors as a whole” under section 600A of the Corporations Actand the circumstances in which the Court will intervene to set aside or impose conditions on resolutions passed at creditors meetings.

BACKGROUND

In the recent matter of JP Morgan Chase Bank, National Association v Fletcher; Grant Samuel Corporate Finance Pty Ltd v Fletcher [2014] NSWCA 31, the NSW Court of Appeal handed down a decision with important consequences for liquidators and the time they have to commence proceedings for voidable transactions. The decision also illustrates the frequently inconsistent operation of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and Court procedure rules. Senior Associate, Elisabeth Pickthall and Associate, Stefano Calabretta discuss the decision.

Introduction

When the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency (Model Law) was introduced into Australian law in 2008, Australian admiralty practitioners expressed concern that the legislation which enacted the Model Law into Australian law did not take into account its potential impact on the right to arrest a ship in Australia.  The concern was that the Model Law would prevent parties from arresting ships in Australia, if the shipowner or charterer was the subject of foreign insolvency proceedings.  

Result

In a recent Federal Court case in Australia (Global Tradewaves Ltd ("GTL") [2013] FCA 1127), liquidators appointed by the British Virgin Islands (BVI) court to GTL, successfully obtained leave to examine a former director of GTL in relation to the company's affairs and to compel him to produce certain company records.

UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency

Key Points:

The NSW Supreme Court says it can provide directions on an administrator's commercial decision on the basis of the liability assumed by administrators and their partners.

As a business owner or company director, there are many elements you need to consider on a day to day basis to ensure your business runs smoothly. If you lease your premises it is important to understand your rights and what risks you face as a tenant.

The Court found that the appointment of voluntary administrators to a company constituted oppressive conduct under section 232 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) in circumstances where it was part of a clear strategy by the controlling shareholder to gain control of the company’s business, to the exclusion of the minority shareholders.  This case provides some useful observations on the operation of section 232, particularly around action by a parent company “of the affairs of” a subsidiary.