The Western Australia Court of Appeal has provided clarity concerning insolvency practitioner independence following pre-administration services and whether those pre-administration services can disentitle insolvency practitioners to remuneration.

In the matter of Premier Energy Resources Pty Ltd [2023] NSWSC 1185, the Administrator unsuccessfully sought an order validating his appointment where he failed to investigate allegations that his appointment documents included a director’s forged letter of resignation.

Key takeaways

Is a court order necessary for security interests granted after the appointment of external administrators? Perhaps not.

This week’s TGIF summarises the Federal Court of Australia’s recent decision granting leave to proceed against a company despite the appointment of a small business restructuring (SBR) practitioner under Pt 5.3B of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act).

Key takeaways

In FamilyMart China Holding Co Ltd (Respondent) v Ting Chuan (Cayman Islands) Holding Corporation (Appellant) (Cayman Islands) [2023] UKPC 33, the Privy Council has provided useful guidance about the interplay between an arbitration agreement and exercise of the Cayman court’s powers and discretion to wind up a company on just and equitable grounds.

In a case that unfolded on May 1, 2018, the Supreme Court of New South Wales ordered the winding up of Day & Night Online Transport Pty Ltd. This was ordered because of the company’s failure to comply with a statutory demand from a creditor, as outlined in section 459C(2)(a) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). However, what followed was a legal journey that ultimately resulted in the rescission of the winding-up order, shedding light on critical aspects of corporate insolvency and the legal processes involved.

Background: The Winding-Up Order

In the matter of Bleecker Property Group Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) [2023] NSWSC 1071, appears to be the first published case that considers the question of whether an order can be made under section 588FF(1)(a) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) by way of default judgment against one defendant where there are multiple defendants in the proceedings.

Key takeaways

The judgments of the Federal Court of Australia and the Full Federal Court in Sino Group International Limited v Toddler Kindy Gymbaroo Pty Ltd ^[1] provide important practical lessons arising from a misleading Deed of Company Arrangement (DOCA) proposal, its termination, and the subsequent appointment of a liquidator.

Reform of our Australian bankruptcy landscape has been the focus of policymakers for some time. The new changes lead by the Attorney-General’s Department, will see the implementation of reforms to the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) (Bankruptcy Law Reforms) and further consultation on a Minimal Asset Procedure (as foreshadowed during our recent Personal Insolvency Forum) (Minimal Asset Procedure). A further development regarding the treatment of capital gains tax (CGT) is included in this update.

Ligon 158 Pty Ltd v Shield Holdings Australia Pty Ltd [2024] FCA 144

A recent decision of the Federal Court of Australia has confirmed the Court’s power to make an order suspending limitation periods applicable to claims against a deregistered company when ordering its reinstatement under s 601AH of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the Act).