Generally speaking, other than in limited prescribed situations, an insolvency practitioner can only be removed by Court order. Often applications are made for the removal because of a perceived bias, however these are not always successful, as was seen in Cote v Devine [2013] WASC 79, handed down last week. New reforms allowing creditors to resolve to remove insolvency practitioners without recourse to the Court have the potential to significantly affect this.
The recent New South Wales Supreme Court decision In re MF Global Australia Ltd (in liq) No 2 [2012] NSWSC 1426 confirmed that the remuneration, costs and expenses incurred by liquidators in preserving, recovering and realising trust assets should be paid out of the trust property generally, rather than being restricted to assets held on trust for the benefit of the company itself.
The recent Federal Court of Australia (Court) decision in CBA Corporate Services (NSW) Pty Ltd, in the matter of ZYX Learning Centres Ltd (receivers and managers appointed) (in liq) v Walker [2013] FCA 243 confirms that liquidators owe a heavy duty of disclosure to the court and that the materiality of facts to be disclosed is to be assessed on a case by case basis.
This is the second case in which the New South Wales Supreme Court has granted an extension of time for registration of a security interest on the Personal Property Securities Register where the delay is accidental or due to inadvertence. However, the extension in this case was conditional firstly, by preserving the priority of another security interest which had been registered in the meantime and secondly, because there was insufficient evidence of the financial position of the grantor to establish that an extension was unlikely to prejudice other creditors or shareholde
In the current economic climate, contactor insolvency is an increasing concern for all participants in the construction industry.
The issue is currently receiving close attention from the NSW Government who commissioned an independent report following a spate of contractor insolvency events in 2012 (including Reed Constructions Australia Pty Ltd, St Hilliers Construction Pty Ltd, Southern Cross Constructions (NSW) Pty Ltd and Hastie Group Limited).
The recent Supreme Court of New South Wales decision in Re V & M Davidovic Pty Limited [2012] NSWSC 1598 clarifies where the directors of a company in receivership will be authorised to defend a winding up application and confirms that Courts will be reluctant to adjourn such applications in order to allow the directors to gather evidence of solvency.
The Facts
Part 1 of a two-part analysis of the recommendations of the NSW Construction Industry Insolvency Inquiry.
Australia has signed on to a new framework that will standardise aircraft financing transactions the world over. It’s positive news for those in Australia’s aviation industry and should lead to cheaper and easier financing of aircraft. However, in exchange, the industry may have to forego some of the benefits of Australia’s current debtor-friendly voluntary administration regime.
It also means any contracts for the purchase, operation or lease of aircraft or engines that extend beyond 2014 should be reviewed before the law changes.
Part 2 of a two-part analysis of the recommendations of the NSW Construction Industry Insolvency Inquiry. Part 1 considered the proposed NSW Building and Construction Commission.
The Inquiry aims to safeguard the interests of sub-contractors and was initiated by the NSW Government following a year marred by high levels of insolvency in the NSW construction industry.
The period for submissions on wide-ranging reforms to the NSW construction industry recommended by the Independent Inquiry into Construction Industry Insolvency in NSW is closing soon.