In many bankruptcies the trustee is without funds to undertake litigation for the benefit of the bankrupt estate. In some cases a creditor is willing to indemnify the trustee in respect of the costs of such litigation where there are strong prospects of a successful conclusion with sufficient funds realised to distribute a dividend to creditors.

In brief - Your actions will depend on whether you acknowledge or dispute the debt

If you are contacted by a debt collector, you should be frank about what you plan to do. If you dispute the debt, you should get legal advice as quickly as possible.

Debt collectors don't go away if you ignore them

A Personal Insolvency Agreement, otherwise known as a PIA, is a flexible arrangement between debtors and their creditors. It involves a debtor putting forward a proposal as to how their financial affairs should be administered with a view to ensuring that creditors receive a dividend in respect of their debts.

A PIA will only come into operation if it has been accepted by a special resolution at a meeting of creditors – meaning a majority in numbers and at least 75% in value must vote in favour of the PIA.

“A failure to respond to a statutory demand can have very serious consequences for a company. In particular, it may result in the company being placed in liquidation and control of the company passing to the liquidator of the company.”

What would you do if you saw the notice above in a box prominently displayed at the top of a document addressed to your company claiming that money is due and owing and specifying that you take urgent action within 21 days?

General corporate

ASIC reports on corporate insolvencies 2012–2013

You are a judgment creditor with a charge over the judgment debtor’s assets and have lodged a caveat over a property owned by judgment debtor. You finally receive word from the judgment debtor that the property has been sold and you are asked to provide a withdrawal of caveat. You agree, subject to being paid the judgment debt at settlement in exchange for the withdrawal. Your request is followed by silence, and then a lapsing notice is served upon you. Your caveat will lapse unless you go to the expense of Supreme Court proceedings to extend the life of your caveat.

The recent decision of Ackers (as joint foreign representative) v Saad Investments Company Limited; In the matter of Saad Investments Company Limited (in official liquidation) [2013] FCA 738 held that the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross Border Insolvency did not prevent the Court from making provision for pari passu payment of local tax debts and penalties from a debtor’s local assets before remitting them to the debtor’s centre of main interests (being “the place the debtor conducts the administration of his interests on a regular basis and is, therefore, ascertainable by third parties”).

The decision of Austino Wentworthville Pty Ltd v Metroland Australia Limited & Ors [2013] NSWCA 59 was an appeal brought by Austino against Metroland and its voluntary administrator Mr Levi (“Levi”) to amend a proof of debt for the purpose of voting at a meeting of creditors in a voluntary administration.

The decision is relevant to insolvency practitioners who act as voluntary administrators in assessing voting entitlements in the voluntary administration process in addition to creditors who offer assets as security to obtain finance.

Background

MSI (Holdings) Pty Ltd (Receivers Appointed) (in Liquidation) ACN 120 419 409 (MSI) against Mainstreet International Group Limited (Mainstreet) ACN 120 747 124.

The appeal was brought by the Receivers, who sought to recover a debt for the secured creditor once a liquidator had been appointed to MSI.

The Court of Appeal handed down the decision recently in favour of MSI.

Facts of the case

A Supreme Court decision has delivered a hefty blow to holders of HIH Holdings (NZ) convertible notes leaving them with little hope of recovering any of their investment.