The International Risk Management Institute defines a Third-Party Administrator (TPA) as a firm that handles various types of administrative responsibilities, on a fee-for-services basis.1 These responsibilities are generally executed for insurance carriers and typically include claims administration, loss control, risk management information systems, and risk management consulting.
The Supreme Court in its recent judgement Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Kew Precision Parts Private Limited & Others1, has held that an application to initiate corporate insolvency resolution process (“CIRP”) against a corporate debtor is maintainable in respect of a time barred debt, if the debtor has after the expiry of the limitation period, agreed to repay the same.
Brief Facts
This week’s TGIF examines a recent NSW Supreme Court decision that illustrates the circumstances in which a person will be regarded as a ‘de facto director’ and the duties owed to creditors when facing insolvency.
Key takeaways
Debt recovery can often be a tricky exercise, as debtors are adept at avoiding and/or delaying payment where there is a debt outstanding.
A cost-effective avenue for debt recovery, where the debtor is a company, is by way of a statutory demand.
The European Union (Preventive Restructuring) Regulations 2022 have amended the Companies Act 2014 so as to require for the first time in statute that directors of companies unable, or likely to be unable, to pay their debts, must have regard to the interests of creditors.
Part 1 of this two-part series explored potential legislative changes which could impact the Australian insolvency landscape in 2022 and beyond. Part 2 addresses the recent major developments in case law that have the potential to shape the insolvency landscape in Australia for many years to come.
In Stratford Hamilton (joint liquidator of Mobigo Ltd (in liquidation)) v James Mcateer, Teresa Delgaudio [2022] the court dismissed the directors' application to strike out misfeasance claims against them.
Background
This week’s TGIF considers Krejci, in the matter of Union Standard International Group Pty Limited (in liq) (No 7) [2022] FCA 890, in which the Federal Court gave liquidators approval to conduct extensive and expensive public examinations despite there being limited expected return to creditors, in part to try and uncover the truth behind $585 million that cannot be accounted for in the company’s dealings.
Key takeaways
Thanks are owed to SPB summer associate Gabby Martin for her contributions to this article.
Last month, a Florida federal jury found in favor of a credit reporting agency (“CRA”) in a trial centering on whether the CRA took “reasonable” steps to assure the accuracy of a consumer’s credit report after a consumer dispute. The result is a valuable glimpse into how juries view the burdens of the statutory obligations placed on reporting agencies by the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”).
Introduction
Section 819 of the Companies Act 2014 operates to restrict directors of insolvent companies from being appointed or acting as a director or secretary of a company and from being concerned in or taking part in the formation or promotion of a company. Any director who falls foul of s.819 is subject to a mandatory period of restriction of 5 years. The primary purpose of s. 819 is to protect the public from persons who, by their conduct, have proven themselves unfit to hold the office and discharge the duties of a director.