In 2014, Forge Group Construction Pty (Forge) went into liquidation. Receivers were also appointed. The Forge insolvency has already been the subject of litigation in the Australian courts in respect of certain Australian PPSA issues (see our previous summary here).
In Madsen-Ries and Vance v Petera the High Court found that the directors of Petranz Limited (in liquidation) had breached certain directors' duties under the Companies Act and, as a consequence, were liable to pay compensation to the Company. In particular, the directors failed to keep proper financial records and produce financial statements.
A case recently heard in the UK suggests that, in certain circumstances, a claim for conversion of assets may be brought against administrators and liquidators of a company. While the claim did not succeed on the facts inEuromex Ventures Ltd & Anor v BNP Paribas Real Estate Advisory & Ors [2013] EWHC 3007 (Ch), the case illustrates that claimants may bring a proceeding on the basis of alleged acts of conversion by a company's liquidators and administrators.
Reports have estimated that 1,300 UK law firms have been put at risk after Latvian insurer Balva was put into liquidation. Initially Latvian Board of Financial and Capital Market Commission (FCMC) insisted there was no cause for concern as all Balva’s insurance policies would remain effective and be transferred to its replacement underwriter, Berliner. However, when Berliner pulled the pin, declining to cover the Balva policies, panic hit the UK legal market. Berliner's exit was described by one broker as the “biggest hand grenade into [the] bottom end of the market for many years.”
The recent Australian Federal Court case of Neeat Holdings (in liq) [2013] FCA 61 considered the issue of whether the liquidator of a trustee company should be permitted to sell trust assets notwithstanding the appointment of a new trustee in substitution for the insolvent trustee company.
The recent Court of Appeal decision in Healy Holmberg Trading Partnership v Grant, clarified the issue of prioritising multiple security interest claims. The Court held the first registered interest takes priority over a latter perfected claim. The Court analysed section 66 of the Personal Property Securities Act 1999, which provides that priority is determined by which report was registered first, not by which claim is perfected first. The Court held section 66 was the guiding provision in establishing which party registered their interest first.
The Western Australian Court of Appeal has recently delivered its judgment on one of the country's longest running pieces of litigation: Westpac Banking Corporation v The Bell Group (in liq) [No 3] (the Bell Appeal). The Bell Appeal decision runs at over 1,000 pages and discusses a range of issues relating to transactions conducted immediately prior to insolvency. Of particular significance for directors and financiers are the discussions relating to director's duties, knowing receipt and knowing assistance.
In Raithatha v Williamson [2012] EWHC 090 Ch, the English High Court was asked to decide whether a bankrupt’s entitlement to a pension, which he had not yet elected to receive, should be subject to an order for income payment.
Justice Ellis recently confirmed the position applicable when a bankrupt applies for a stay of the decision adjudicating the debtor bankrupt pending appeal.
Mr Cary had been made bankrupt on 12 September 2011 as a result of a long outstanding debt to Trustees Executors Limited. His opposition to the bankruptcy was based solely on the fact that Mr Cary thought he should be given more time to advance a proposal to creditors under Part 5 of the Insolvency Act 2006. This was rejected by the Court for a variety of reasons, and the adjudication order made.
In the High Court decision of Herbert v Allied Nationwide Finance Limited & Others, the Court declined to approve a creditor's proposal under the Insolvency Act 2006 on the grounds that the terms were not reasonable and not calculated to benefit the general body of creditors.