Limiting Liability of Administrators for Employee Wages
Walley IMO PGP Group (Aust) Pty Ltd [2023] FCA 1554 ("PGP Group") and Crosbie IMO Godfreys Group Pty Ltd [2024] FCA 60 ("Godfreys")
Voluntary administrators have been able to seek orders releasing them from their personal liability for debts incurred by them in the course of conducting a company's business. That relief has been available where it has been necessary to support the continuing operation of that business.
In Re Tucker, Quintis Leasing Pty Ltd [2023] FCA 1673, the administrators of a company successfully obtained orders from the Federal Court modifying the operation of section 443B of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).
Fiduciary Duties of Receivers
Receivers appointed to enforce a security owe their fiduciary duties to their appointor and not to the mortgagor. So, when realising the assets of the mortgagor, the receivers can focus their attention on pursuing that course of action which, as they judge it, is best calculated to optimise the position of their appointor; Salmon v Albarran [2023] NSWSC 1238 ("Salmon").
A Case Analysis of Official Trustee in Bankruptcy v Kent (No 2) [2023] FCA 1396
In Official Trustee in Bankruptcy v Kent [2023] FCA 1211 (“Principal Case“), the Court found that a bankrupt’s right to claim compensation through the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (“AFCA”) is personal to the bankrupt and that right cannot be assigned to the Trustee.
The Federal Court decision of Copeland in his capacity as liquidator of Skyworkers Pty limited (in Liquidation) (Skyworkers) v Murace [2023] FCA 14 stresses the importance of liquidators adequately particularising claims in a Statement of Claim (SOC). In particular, the liquidator in this case was unable to identify the specific dates that the debts were incurred and how these debts arose.
Despites its recent failure in case against an administrator in a phoenixing case, ASIC could snatch long-term victory from the jaws of defeat with clear regulatory guidance for insolvency practitioners.
A Case Analysis of Doctors of Optimization Pty Ltd v MPA Engineering Pty Ltd (Subsidiary of Aquatec Maxon Group Ltd) [2023] QCA 219
In the realm of corporate governance, addressing misconduct within a company becomes particularly critical when an insolvency practitioner is appointed. The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) sheds light on the intricacies of this scenario, outlining key points for stakeholders to be aware of and steps to take.
In a recent case, the Victorian Supreme Court said that an accountant ‘would know well that a statutory demand involves strict time frames for response and potentially very significant consequences for a company’. The accountant failed to take appropriate steps to inform the company of the statutory demand.
The statutory demand process
If a company does not comply with a statutory demand within 21 days of service, it is deemed to be insolvent and the creditor may proceed to wind up the company.
The Bankruptcy Amendment (Discharge from Bankruptcy) Bill 2023 (“Bill”) has been agreed to by both the House of Representative and the Senate and will now be presented to the Governor-General.
The Bill seeks to amend the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) (“the Act”) to provide legal certainty on the calculation of bankruptcy discharge dates, aligning the Act with current practices, by confirming that the discharge date is determined from when the Statement of Affairs is accepted, rather than when it was initially presented.
Why the change?