Mana bought proceedings against the liquidators of James for legal costs resulting from the liquidator's decision to continue an appeal against Mana, in respect of successful specific performance proceedings brought by Mana against James.

As part of what appears to be a global trend, the amount of litigation in Belgium is increasing rapidly. Litigation advice is fast becoming one of the most in-demand services in legal practice, along with advice on restructuring and employment. Due to the challenging economic and financial conditions, companies are now tending to commence debt collection proceedings as soon as their debtors fail to honour their debts, and are pre-emptively restructuring their businesses in order to avoid unnecessary costs which might eventually lead to bankruptcy.

The recent decision in Pacific China Holdings Limited v Grand Pacific Holdings Limited, BVIHCV 2009/389 sets out the view of the BVI Commercial Court as to who, if anyone, should be responsible for the remuneration of liquidators where a liquidation order is set aside on appeal.

A number of changes have been made to insolvency procedure to remove various discrepancies and controversial practices:

Update on Liquidator remuneration post-Sakr1

Key points summary

Following the recent high-profile appeal decision2, the Supreme Court of New South Wales has now finalised the saga that was the review and approval of the remuneration of the Liquidator of Sakr Nominees.

From that decision emerge several key points for insolvency professionals when considering their remuneration:

The Supreme Court of Victoria recently ruled inFreelance Global Limited (in liq) v Bensted and Ors [2016] VSC 181 that liquidators of corporate trustees are entitled to have their

The decision in In the matter of Independent Contractor Services (Aust) could mean more reliance upon fair entitlements guarantee funding provided by the Commonwealth in relation to the liquidation of trading trusts.

Marsden v Screenmasters Australia provides guidance to liquidators who commence and continue proceedings, pursuant to funding arrangements, when met with arguments that the proceedings will not confer a benefit to creditors. 

WHAT HAPPENED?

This week’s TGIF considers a decision in which the Court held that an administrator who has unsuccessfully defended a proceeding may need to reinstate any remuneration previously received to satisfy the resultant costs order.

BACKGROUND

The deed administrator of a company subject to a Deed of Company Arrangement (DOCA) rejected proofs of debt submitted by a number of creditors.  The creditors successfully appealed against the rejection of the proofs of debt. 

Update on McCabes' article " 'Are we there yet' - When are proceedings over for the purposes of enforcement"

The High Court of Australia has refused an application for special leave to appeal the decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia in Sarks v Cassegrain [2015] FCAFC 38, confirming that a judgment issued by the Court on the basis of filing of a certificate of costs assessment is a "final judgment" for the purposes of s 40(1)(g) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) and can therefore ground a bankruptcy notice.