This week’s TGIF looks at the departure from the general costs rule considered in In the matter of Condor Blanco Mines Ltd (No. 2) in circumstances where the administrator was found not to have discharged the duty of essential neutrality.
This week’s TGIF considers In the matter of Banksia Securities Limited (in liquidation) (receivers and managers appointed)[2016] NSWSC 357 in which the Court uses its broad remedial powers to appoint special purpose receivers.
BACKGROUND
This week’s TGIF considers the case of In the matter of Idoport Pty Limited (in liquidation) [2015] NSWSC 1412 in which the Court reinforced that a reluctance to give directions to a liquidator in respect of commercial matters is qualified in respect of matters which are capable of giving rise to a legal controversy.
What happened?
The High Court of Australia unanimously reversed the decisions of the New South Wales Court of Appeal, and of Justice Black at first instance, in finding that liquidators cannot rely on the procedural court rules of a State or Territory to apply, outside the period allowed in the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corps Act), to extend the time within which they can bring voidable transaction proceedings under s. 588FF of Corps Act.
On 11 September 2014, the Supreme Court of NSW handed down its decision in Allco Funds Management Limited (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (In Liquidation) v Trust Company (RE Services) Limited (in its capacity as responsible entity and trustee of the Australian Wholesale Property Fund) [2014] NSWSC 1251.
The decision has highlighted the risks associated with the involvement of directors in transactions where they are in a position of conflict.
THE FACTS
The recent WA Supreme Court decision in White v Spiers Earthworks Pty Ltd [2014] WASC 139, highlights the consequences of not registering a security interest under the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (PPSA) when a company becomes insolvent.
The case also provides guidance about certain PPSA savings provisions, the treatment of transitional security interests and the primacy of PPSA over pre-PPSA legislation.
BACKGROUND
In New Age Constructions (NSW) Pty Ltd v Etlis, in the matter of Etlis[2013] FCA 884, an unsecured creditor applied to set aside a Personal Insolvency Agreement (PIA)and also sought a sequestration order against the debtor’s estate. The Federal Court considered whether the terms of the PIA were unreasonable or not calculated to benefit creditors generally.
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.
In a recent decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (In the matter of C.V. Joint (Aust) Pty Ltd [2002] NSWSC 981), a provisional liquidator was appointed by the Court to a company primarily due to an ongoing dispute between the directors and shareholders. The case is a useful reminder of the relevant principles that apply when seeking to have a provisional liquidator appointed.
Key takeaways
The NSW Supreme Court considered the application of the ‘Universal principle’ in Volkswagen Financial Services Australia Pty Ltd v Atlas CTL Pty Ltd (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (In Liquidation) [2022] NSWSC 573, dismissing a claim for an equitable lien made by administrators and liquidators for trading costs and remuneration.
Key takeaways