This week’s TGIF considers Re GGA Lifestyle Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed); Ex Parte Woodhouse [2019] WASC 167, where the Supreme Court of Western Australia clarified that a voluntary administrator of a company in administration is able to claim costs of care, preservation and realisation of partnership assets of the company in administration through an equitable lien in the same way liquidators can.

What happened?

It’s tempting for a company director to not respond to a liquidator’s request to produce financial records if they contain incriminating material, but is it wise?  

The significance of this decision

On 3 May 2019, the Federal Court of Australia dismissed an application brought by the administrators of an oil and gas exploration company, Paltar Petroleum Limited (Paltar) to adjourn proceedings for the winding-up of the company in insolvency. The decision illustrates that the belated appointment of administrators appointed by directors in response to pending winding-up proceedings is unlikely to keep at bay the approaching fire of liquidation; indeed, it may accelerate it.

Background

The decision in the Go Energy Group is an important one for insolvency practitioners, who now have guidance on how to manage the conflicts that can arise when acting as liquidator to multiple companies within a corporate group.

The introduction of a safe harbour protection for company directors was one of a number of generational reforms to the restructuring landscape throughout late 2017 and 2018 aimed at relaxing Australia’s unforgiving insolvency laws.

Now that more than a year has passed, have the safe harbour reforms been a success? And what steps can directors take to ensure they obtain the protections they afford?

This week’s TGIF considers the recent case of Halifax Investment Services Pty Ltd (In liquidation) (No 4) [2019] FCA 604 where the Federal Court granted an application by liquidators of a company to electronically publish notices required to be sent to creditors as part of their initial reporting obligations in a winding up, to save costs and time, in cir

The NSW Supreme Court has reaffirmed the criteria for a Court to inquire into a liquidator’s conduct. It is necessary to show that there is at least a ‘well-based suspicion’ indicating a need for further investigation. ‘Mere wondering’ is not enough.

In exercising its discretion, a Court will also consider the nature and gravity of the allegations against the liquidator, delays in seeking an inquiry, the utility of an inquiry and the existence of alternative remedies.

Background

Introduction

The NSW Supreme Court has provided guidance on the scope and operation of ss 70-45, 70-55 and 70-90 of the Insolvency Practice Schedule (Corporations) (IPSC) in The Matter of 1st Fleet Pty Ltd (in liquidation) [2019] NSWSC 6.

In the recent case of In the matter of Gondon Five Pty Limited and Cui Family Asset Management Pty Limited [2019] NSWSC 469, the New South Wales Supreme Court (Brereton J) considered the purpose and scope of an appointment as receiver to a company, and came down particularly hard on an insolvency practitioner for performing work and incurring expenses which were determined to be outside, or not incidental to, the scope of his appointment.

Background

Who should read this eBrief: