This week’s TGIF considers the decision of Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v BE100 Property Investments Pty Ltd [2016] FCA 597 where the court found that a deed administrator acted unreasonably by attempting to terminate a deed of company arrangement immediately before a meeting of creditors.

With the release of its much anticipated National Innovation and Science Agenda (the NISA), the Federal Government has committed more than $1 billion over the next four years to turning around Australia’s innovation performance.  

Australia’s poor record in translating research to commercial products and services is well known. We rank last amongst OECD countries for collaboration on innovation between industry and higher education and public research institutions.

BACKGROUND

FACTS

InKitay, in the matter of South West Kitchens (WA) Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 670, Mr Kitay was appointed liquidator of South West Kitchens (WA) Pty Ltd (SW Kitchens) by voluntary winding up. SW Kitchens was trustee of a trust and owned all its assets as trustee of that trust. The trust deed provided that SW Kitchens was disqualified from acting as trustee if it was wound up.

In the recent decision of First Strategic Development Corporation Limited (in liq) and Anor v Chan and Ors [2014] QSC 60, the Supreme Court of Queensland considered the solvency of a company with no assets or formalised line of credit, but with a director who claimed to be willing to fund the $2.5 million that the company had committed to spending.

FACTS

Like the mythical bird that dies and then resurrects, phoenixing is the deliberate liquidation of a company to avoid paying tax, creditors or employees and then the ‘resurrection’ of the business through a different entity.

It is illegal and particularly prevalent in the construction sector. It’s time for the states to take action against phoenixing through better licensing of builders.

The recent Supreme Court of New South Wales decision of In the matter of Octaviar Administration Pty Limited (in liquidation) [2013] NSWSC 786 confirms that liquidators must notify all interested parties prior to seeking an extension for the period in which to bring preference actions.  For the first time, the Court has confirmed that the directors of the insolvent company are “interested persons” in cases where a liquidator intends to pursue the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) over potential preferential payments based solely on the potential for the ATO to

This week’s TGIF considers a decision of Georges (Liquidator), in the Matter of SIRA Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) [2022] FCA 768, in which liquidators were granted leave to serve a summons for examination on a company based in Singapore.

Key takeaways

In the recent case of Stubbings v Jams 2 Pty Ltd [2022] HCA 6, the High Court has allowed an appeal relating to asset-based lending (ABL) and the enforceability of security associated with these loans. The High Court held that whilst asset-based lending itself is not unconscionable, certain conduct may render loans and security unenforceable. The decision is a reminder that lenders should ensure the circumstances of potential borrowers are fully scrutinised prior to lending.

This week’s TGIF considers a decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales on whether leave should be granted for proceedings against a court-appointed liquidator personally.

Key Takeaways