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:
The Federal Magistrates Court of Australia decision of Dubow v Official Receiver & Anor [2013] FMCA 217 confirms that the Court’s discretion to annul bankruptcy is limited. Even if the discretion is enlivened, it appears that the Court will be reluctant to exercise its discretion where the bankruptcy has come about by the bankrupt’s own petition.
ASIC suspended the Australian Financial Services Licence of LM Investment Management Limited for two years this week for being an externally managed vehicle (voluntary administrators were appointed in March 2013). The practical effect of the suspension will mean that LM Investment Management won’t continue managing its nine funds. ASIC is also investigating the complex structure of the business and their related party transactions with the principal, Peter Drake.
Quite often we are asked to advise upon issues that arise in the context of creditor’s meetings. The following is a summary of commonly asked questions and commentary on the legal position, including a discussion of recent cases that have looked at each issue.
1. Can a 2nd creditor’s meeting be extended beyond the 45 day statutory period?
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).
Justice Jacobson's unwillingness to depart from the interests of the majority in relation to Nine Entertainment should give parties confidence that Schemes remain an effective way to effect debt for equity swaps or similar transactions.