The recent New South Wales Supreme Court (Court) decision in Plaza West Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (subject to a deed of company arrangement) [2013] NSWSC 168 involved an application to terminate the winding up of a company subject to a deed of company arrangement (DOCA) and emphasised the importance of comprehensive reports from the company’s administrators and experts, in deciding that application.

Background

In Saraceni v ASIC [2013] FCAFC 42 the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia confirmed that it is not necessary for ASIC to provide potential examinees with an opportunity to be heard prior to authorising receivers to conduct examinations under s596A of the Corporations Act.

FACTS

Later this year the High Court will hear an appeal from the decision of the Victorian Court of Appeal in Re Willmott Forests Limited (Receivers and Managers appointed) (in liquidation) [2012] VSCA 202.

The decisions of the Court of Appeal and the trial judge were considered in our earlier alert that can be accessed by clicking here.

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

There is a plethora of Australian legislation which sheets home personal liability to directors and officers.

Below are some reminders of traps for directors and officers for transactions that might be undertaken in the usual course of a director or officer’s normal arrangements.

Trap 1: Super re-contribution

Some advisors propose, as a strategy for limiting superannuation death benefits tax, withdrawing superannuation balances and re-contributing that amount into super as a non-concessional tax-free contribution.

On 19 April 2013, Justice Foster of the Federal Court of Australia handed down judgment in the case of Eopply New Energy Technology Co Ltd v EP Solar Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 356. The question before his Honour was whether a foreign arbitral award made in China ought to be enforced in Australia against an Australian company in liquidation.

The recent Supreme Court of New South Wales decision of AMC Commercial Cleaning (NSW) Pty Ltd v Stephen Keith Coade & Anor; Rockcliffs Solicitors & IP Lawyers v Schon Condon as liquidator of AMC Commercial Cleaning (NSW) (No 2) [2013] NSWSC 332 confirms that a liquidator may be personally liable to pay costs where the liquidator initiates proceedings to claim funds for the company in liquidation.

On 19 April 2013, the Federal Court of Australia handed down its judgment in Eopply New Energy Technology Co Ltd v EP Solar Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 356. The Court enforced a foreign award against a company in liquidation, in the latest evidence of Australia’s pro-arbitration environment. 

Background

The recent decision of Oswal, in the matter of Burrup Fertilisers Pty Ltd (Receivers and Managers Appointed) v Carson, McEvoy and Theobald (Receivers and Managers) (No 3) [2013] FCA 357 confirms that the Federal Court will not order an inquiry into the alleged misconduct of receivers and managers where the relevant events are matters of commercial judgment.

Introduction

In the hire industry, it is common for hirers to incur significant exposure on customer accounts where credit is extended in circumstances where security is not provided.  In a difficult economic climate, ensuring your customers promptly pay for hired goods, or pay at all, can be challenging. 

A recent analysis^[1] has found that: