This week’s TGIF considers the recent case of Vanguard v Modena [2018] FCA 1461, where the Court ordered a non-party director to pay indemnity costs due to his conduct in opposing winding-up proceedings against his company.

Background

Vanguard served a statutory demand on Modena on 27 September 2017 seeking payment of outstanding “commitment fees” totalling $138,000 which Modena was obliged, but had failed, to repay.

On 9 April 2018 Linc Energy Ltd (in liquidation) was convicted of causing serious environmental harm at its pilot underground coal gasification facility near Chinchilla, Queensland.

Administrators were appointed to the company on 15 April 2016. On 23 May they were appointed liquidators after creditors resolved that the company be wound up.

This week’s TGIF examines the determination of an application by a liquidator for directions as to the conduct of further investigations and for those costs and expenses to be paid from the assets of a trust.

What happened?

On 16 March 2016, Australian Managed Print Services (Vic) Pty Ltd (AMPS) was wound up in insolvency and a liquidator was appointed by order of the court.

This week’s TGIF considers the recent proposals to crackdown on rogue directors and reduce the burden on FEG to pay unpaid workers.

A last resort – but for who?

On 17 May 2017, the Federal Government published a consultation paper inviting submissions on options for law reform to address corporate misuse of the Fair Entitlements Guarantee (‘FEG’) scheme.

This week’s TGIF considers the recent decision of Hastie Group Ltd (in liq) v Moore [2016] NSWCA 305 in which the Court held that privilege attached to an expert report prepared for the purpose of obtaining litigation funding.

WHAT HAPPENED?

The recent decision of the New South Wales Supreme Court in Independent Contractor Services (Aust) Pty Limited ACN 119 186 971 (in liquidation) (no 2) [2016] NSWSC 106 found that the statutory scheme of priority does not apply to realisations from circulating trust assets. This decision has potentially profound impacts for both employees and secured creditors in the context of both liquidations and receiverships.

A summary of the case

This week’s TGIF considers a decision in which the Court held that an administrator who has unsuccessfully defended a proceeding may need to reinstate any remuneration previously received to satisfy the resultant costs order.

BACKGROUND

The deed administrator of a company subject to a Deed of Company Arrangement (DOCA) rejected proofs of debt submitted by a number of creditors.  The creditors successfully appealed against the rejection of the proofs of debt. 

BACKGROUND

Stephanie Roebuck As Executor Of The Deceased Estate Of Suzanne Florence Bulwinkel (Roebuck) served Bulwinkel Enterprises Pty Ltd (Bulwinkel) with a statutory demand for the payment of $990,377.63 monies owing in connection with an unpaid trust distribution and loan between the parties. 

FACTS

The directors of Joe & Joe Developments Pty Ltd (the Company), were Mr Tony Elias and Mr Joseph Kossaifi. The Company’s shareholders were the directors and their families.

In late 2005, the Companypurchased land in Narrabeen, NSW and constructed commercial and retail units on that land.  Differences between the directors as to what should be done in respect of the completed development emerged from early 2007 and had grown into a substantial dispute by 2008.

The High Court recently delivered judgment in the matter of Stewart v Atco Controls Pty Ltd (In Liquidation).^[1] The case turned on the application of the well-known principle in Universal Distributing