The Facts
In this case the liquidators of Octaviar Administration had obtained an extension to the time for them to bring voidable transaction proceedings under section 588FF(1) of the Corporations Act (Extension Order). Before the expiration of the Extension Order, the liquidators sought a further extension under s588FF(3)(b) or, alternatively, asked the Court to vary the date in the Extension Order pursuant to the Court’s procedural powers under r 36.16 of Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) (UCPR).
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
Case Note: Re Cardinia Nominees Pty Ltd [2013] NSWSC 32
Facts of the case
Cardinia Nominees Pty Ltd (Cardinia) agreed to lend Inika Pty Ltd (Inika) the sum of $750,000, in exchange for the issue of convertible bonds to Cardinia. The loan was secured by a charge in favour of Cardinia over the whole of Inika’s assets.
A Supreme Court decision has delivered a hefty blow to holders of HIH Holdings (NZ) convertible notes leaving them with little hope of recovering any of their investment.
The NSW Government has accepted some of the key recommendations of the Recommendations of the Independent Inquiry in Construction Industry Insolvency in NSW, including the introduction of bonds. We know that the Government will:
In the recent decision of MSI (Holdings) Pty Ltd v Mainstreet International Group Ltd [2013] QCA 27, the Court of Appeal considered the meaning and application of sections 471B and 471C of the Corporations Act.
BACKGROUND
The decision involved receivers who were appointed to MSI (Holdings) Pty Ltd (receivers appointed) (in liquidation) (MSI) by Central Coast Projects Pty Ltd (Central Coast) pursuant to a charge it held over all property, assets and rights of MSI.
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.