The Federal Court found that where a trust deed provides for the cessation of a corporate trustee upon the appointment of an administrator or upon a resolution for its liquidation (and there is no replacement trustee appointed), the corporate trustee retains its right of indemnity and continues as bare trustee but does not have the power to sell the trust assets.  However, the Court was persuaded to grant relief to the liquidators of the trustee (who had sold trust assets) on the basis they had not been advised by their solicitors of the disqualification clause and they com

In the recent case MSI (Holdings) Pty Ltd v Mainstreet International Group Ltd, the Queensland Supreme Court confirmed that receivers of a company in liquidation can commence legal proceedings in the name of the company without leave of the court, when those proceedings relate to the recovery of secured property.

On the occurrence of bankruptcy, the trustee must take immediate possession or control of the bankrupt’s property, as that property is now “available” to the trustee for the benefit of creditors generally and vests in the trustee for that purpose.  However, a bankrupt may not always co-operate with his or her trustee and will often refuse to deliver up property to the trustee or even allow the trustee on to the premises where the property is held.

A relevant example

The recent decision of Modcol Pty Ltd v National Buildplan Group Pty Ltd ^[1] addressed whether leave should be granted to a subcontractor to allow it to commence proceedings against a contractor in administration in respect of the subcontractor's rights under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW) (the SOP Act).

Six month extensions to convening periods should not be seen as a fait accompli, particularly if the administrator's application is opposed.

There is a commonly held belief that courts will readily grant an administrator's application for an extension to the convening period. This might have been true once, but it is fast turning into an urban myth, judging by two recent decisions in the Federal Court.

In the recent decision of ASIC v ActiveSuper Pty Ltd (No 2) [2013] FCA 234 (ActiveSuper), the Federal Court considered an application by ASIC brought pursuant to s 472(2) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act) to appoint provisional liquidators to a company MOGS Pty Ltd (MOGS).

Summary 

In the recent decision of Re Willmott Forests Ltd,1the Victorian Court of Appeal held that a liquidator could disclaim a lease under the Corporations Act (Act).

It is quite a thing for the law to remove from owners the rights normally associated with ownership and to confer them on receivers. 

Which is why, although receivers are allowed considerable discretion in the exercise of their duties, they are also subject to oversight by the courts.

So how much freedom of manoeuvre do they have, and when will the court intervene?  We look at a recent decision¹  in the Australian Federal Court and consider its relevance for New Zealand insolvency practitioners.

Upon appointment, a liquidator will generally exercise control of as much of the company’s property as is available, so that it can be realised for the benefit of creditors.  However, in some cases, a liquidator may not wish to retain certain property if it is unlikely that such property will provide a return to the liquidation.

Introduction

Incidents of insolvency in the construction industry are under the spotlight after the recent failure of a number of construction companies¹. Insolvency events affect not only the insolvent company, but all of those involved in the project supply chain, from suppliers and subcontractors who have not received payment for goods and works supplied, to owners and developers who experience delays and increased costs to their projects.