The recent decision of Lewis v Nortex Pty Limited (in liquidation)1 highlights potential issues that may arise for liquidators when issuing a bankruptcy notice.
Facts
Nortex Pty Ltd (Nortex) was the trustee of the Nortex Unit Trust (Trust) pursuant to a deed. Under the terms of the trust deed, Nortex ceased to be trustee when the company went into liquidation. The beneficiaries of the trust were Kation Pty Ltd (Kation) which was controlled by the appellant (Lewis) and Lamru Pty Ltd (Lamru).
In an important decision for the large number of discretionary trusts in Australia, the Supreme Court of New South Wales has considered whether a family trust structure is a sufficiently robust firewall to protect the family trust assets against claims by a trustee in bankruptcy appointed to the personal Trustee or Appointor of a family trust.
The decision is Lewis v Condon; Condon v Lewis [2013] NSWCA 204 which was handed down on 4 July 2013 by the Court of Appeal.
On the occurrence of bankruptcy, the trustee must take immediate possession or control of the bankrupt’s property, as that property is now “available” to the trustee for the benefit of creditors generally and vests in the trustee for that purpose. However, a bankrupt may not always co-operate with his or her trustee and will often refuse to deliver up property to the trustee or even allow the trustee on to the premises where the property is held.
A relevant example
On the occurrence of bankruptcy, the trustee must take immediate possession or control of the bankrupt’s property, as that property is now “available” to the trustee for the benefit of creditors generally and vests in the trustee for that purpose. However, a bankrupt may not always co-operate with his or her trustee and will often refuse to deliver up property to the trustee or even allow the trustee on to the premises where the property is held.
A relevant example
The Federal Magistrates Court of Australia decision of Dubow v Official Receiver & Anor [2013] FMCA 217 confirms that the Court’s discretion to annul bankruptcy is limited. Even if the discretion is enlivened, it appears that the Court will be reluctant to exercise its discretion where the bankruptcy has come about by the bankrupt’s own petition.
In brief - Bill implements reforms proposed in options paper
In the case of Wilson v McNamara [2020] EWHC 98 (Ch) the High Court of England and Wales (the Court) considered whether the EU principle of freedom of establishment requires that a pension held in another EU member state (Ireland) should be excluded from a bankruptcy estate under UK law in the same manner as a UK pension would be in a UK bankruptcy. Mr Justice Nugee decided in order to decide the case the Court needed to refer a preliminary reference to the European Court of Justice (CJEU) on a question of EU law.
El tribunal de un Estado miembro que conoce del procedimiento de insolvencia tiene competencia exclusiva para conocer de las acciones revocatorias ejercitadas dentro del mismo
Sentencia del Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea de 14 de noviembre de 2018
In the context of globalisation, companies are often active not only in the country of incorporation but also in several other legal systems. If a company fails, there is a need for rules that make the insolvency proceedings predictable. In the EU there are two current regulations1 to take into account, one applicable before and one after 24.06.2015.
Cross-border insolvency in the EU
A common experience of most European insolvency law systems is the legislators‘ constant swinging backwards and forwards in their attempts to find a balance between the interests of the creditors (which inspired the legislator when insolvency laws were enacted for the first time in1942 in Italy) with those of the debtor and its owners, as well as the need to protect jobs and rescue viable businesses for the benefit of the economy as a whole. The first Italian insolvency law was enacted in 1942, and was modelled on the German Konkursordnung.