Background

In In the matter of Nexus Energy Ltd (subject to a deed of company arrangement) [2014] NSWSC 1910, the deed administrators of Nexus Energy Limited (subject to a Deed of Company Arrangement) (Nexus) sought leave of the Court to transfer all ordinary shares in Nexus to SGH Energy (No 2) Pty Ltd (SGH2). SGH2 was the proponent of the Deed of Company Arrangement (DOCA) and was also associated with the secured lender.

This week’s TGIF looks at the decision of the Federal Court of Australia in Donoghue v Russells (A Firm)[2021] FCA 798 in which Mr Donoghue appealed a decision to make a sequestration order which was premised on him ‘carrying on business in Australia' for the purpose of section 43(1)(b)(iii) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) (Act).

Key Takeaways

This week’s TGIF considers a recent decision of the Victorian Court of Appeal where a company’s creditors successfully opposed an application by the company’s liquidators to compromise proceedings commenced on the company’s behalf.

This week’s TGIF considers a recent Federal Court decision in which relief was sought under section 588FM of the Corporations Act to ensure a security interest perfected after the ‘critical time’ did not automatically vest.

What happened?

On 7 April 2016, administrators were appointed to OneSteel. OneSteel, a member of the Arrium Group of Companies, subsequently entered into a deed of company arrangement.

The recent Supreme Court of NSW decision In the matter of Anglican Development Fund Diocese of Bathurst Board (recs and mgrs apptd) [2015] NSWSC 6, confirms that a board of directors’ residual powers in receivership include consenting to judgment in favour of a creditor.   

BACKGROUND

This week’s TGIF considers the decision of Palace v RCR O’Donnell Griffin Pty Ltd (in liq)[2021] QCA 137, in which the Queensland Court of Appeal provided useful guidance on the principles to be applied when a party seeks leave under section 500(2) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) to bring proceedings against a company in liquidation.

Key Takeaways

This week’s TGIF takes a look at the recent case of Mills Oakley (a partnership) v Asset HQ Australia Pty Ltd [2019] VSC 98, where the Supreme Court of Victoria found the statutory presumption of insolvency did not arise as there had not been effective service of a statutory demand due to a typographical error in the postal address.

What happened?

This week’s TGIF considers a decision of the Victorian Supreme Court which examined the merits of appointing special purpose liquidators in circumstances where a creditor was only willing to fund investigations if the appointment was made.

What happened?

In May and June 2016, two registered education and training organisations (together, the RTOs) were placed into liquidation.

In DSG Holdings Australia Pty Ltd v Helenic Pty Ltd [2014] NSWCA 96, the Court of Appeal considered the meaning of the “interests of the creditors as a whole” under section 600A of the Corporations Actand the circumstances in which the Court will intervene to set aside or impose conditions on resolutions passed at creditors meetings.

BACKGROUND

In a decision handed down just before the end of term, auditors have won an important House of Lords ruling limiting their liability in cases where a “one man” company is used as a vehicle for fraud. The Law Lords dismissed by a majority of three to two a negligence claim brought against an audit firm for failing to detect a massive fraud at Stone & Rolls, a trading company that fell in the late 1990s – holding that the liquidators could not bring a claim for damages when the company itself was responsible for the fraud.

Background