This week’s TGIF considers the decision of In the matter of Bryve Resources Pty Ltd [2022] NSWSC 647, which illustrates the circumstances in which liquidators can recover payments made by the company to, or for the benefit of, directors.
Key takeaways
This week’s TGIF considers the recent decision of In the matter of PIC Lindfield 19 Pty Ltd (in liq)[2022] NSWSC 271, in which former directors of the company in liquidation failed to set aside summonses for public examination on the basis of alleged non-disclosure by the liquidators.
Key Takeaways
This week’s TGIF considers a recent decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Re Antqip Pty Ltd (in liq) [2021] NSWSC 1122, concerning whether section 588FL of the Corporations Act2001 (Cth) applied to vest a security interest in the company that was granted after the ‘critical time’.
Key Takeaways
This week’s TGIF focuses on themes that are emerging as Australia moves to an economic recovery phase and sees the end of government intervention to prevent insolvencies.
Key takeaways
This week’s TGIF considers the decision of In the matter ofCohalan & Mitchell Roofing (in liquidation)[2020] VSC 222, where the Supreme Court of Victoria refused to grant an extension of time for filing voidable transaction proceedings.
Background
During the second half of 2019, it was generally accepted that the US/China trade war was the most likely macroeconomic event that would precipitate a global slowdown. Even then, given the enormous amount of ‘dry powder’ capital that was available in the market, the downturn, if any, was expected to be mild.
This week’s TGIF article considers the case of Kelly, in the matter of Halifax Investment Services Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (No 5) [2019] FCA 1341, in which liquidators of two linked investment companies in Australia and New Zealand sought to hold concurrent hearings in the Federal Court and in the High Court of New Zealand.
What happened?
This week’s TGIF considers a recent decision of the Victorian Court of Appeal where a company’s creditors successfully opposed an application by the company’s liquidators to compromise proceedings commenced on the company’s behalf.
This week’s TGIF considers the process that a liquidator may follow when a director fails to attend at an examination. It considers the appeal in Mensink v Parbery [2018] FCAFC 101, in which the Court set out the relevant differences between arrest warrants issued to require a director to attend an examination, and arrest warrants to answer charges for contempt.
What happened?