Arena Capital Limited (Arena) was a Ponzi scheme.  Arena's liquidators applied under s284(1)(a) of the Companies Act 1993 for directions regarding the distribution of assets under liquidation.

The Court held that dividing the assets into trust assets and general assets was inefficient in the circumstances and ordered a "common pool approach."  The Court ordered distribution on a pro rata, pari passu basis.  The investors had borne the same degree of risk and it was not cost-effective to trace the numerous small contributions.

In this Australian case, a major creditor of the company in question alleged that it was involved in phoenix activity and offered to fund a public examination of the director provided that the creditor's solicitors would act for the liquidators in that examination.  The liquidators refused the offer and, in response, the creditor applied to have the liquidators removed.

In Mclean v Trustees of the Bankruptcy Estate of Dent [2016] EWHC 2650, the High Court considered the application of the equitable doctrines of marshalling and subrogation in relation to a fixed charge over (among other things) a dog.

A company and partnership borrowed funds from two sources – Barclays Bank and Lady Morrison. Barclays held, among other things, charges over farms owned by individual partners and an agricultural charge under the Agricultural Credits Act 1928 (UK), including a charge over a dog. Lady Morrison only held charges over the farms.

Australian-listed Slater & Gordon, the world’s first publicly traded law firm, is preparing to post what is understood to be legal sector’s biggest ever annual loss.  A profit warning filed with the Australian Securities Exchange, reveals the firm's full-year net loss after tax for the year ended 30 June is expected to total A$1,017.6m. 

In 2014, Forge Group Construction Pty (Forge) went into liquidation.  Receivers were also appointed.  The Forge insolvency has already been the subject of litigation in the Australian courts in respect of certain Australian PPSA issues (see our previous summary here).

In Madsen-Ries and Vance v Petera the High Court found that the directors of Petranz Limited (in liquidation) had breached certain directors' duties under the Companies Act and, as a consequence, were liable to pay compensation to the Company.  In particular, the directors failed to keep proper financial records and produce financial statements.

A case recently heard in the UK suggests that, in certain circumstances, a claim for conversion of assets may be brought against administrators and liquidators of a company.  While the claim did not succeed on the facts inEuromex Ventures Ltd & Anor v BNP Paribas Real Estate Advisory & Ors [2013] EWHC 3007 (Ch), the case illustrates that claimants may bring a proceeding on the basis of alleged acts of conversion by a company's liquidators and administrators. 

Reports have estimated that 1,300 UK law firms have been put at risk after Latvian insurer Balva was put into liquidation. Initially Latvian Board of Financial and Capital Market Commission (FCMC) insisted there was no cause for concern as all Balva’s insurance policies would remain effective and be transferred to its replacement underwriter, Berliner. However, when Berliner pulled the pin, declining to cover the Balva policies, panic hit the UK legal market. Berliner's exit was described by one broker as the “biggest hand grenade into [the] bottom end of the market for many years.”

The recent Australian Federal Court case of Neeat Holdings (in liq) [2013] FCA 61 considered the issue of whether the liquidator of a trustee company should be permitted to sell trust assets notwithstanding the appointment of a new trustee in substitution for the insolvent trustee company.

The recent Court of Appeal decision in Healy Holmberg Trading Partnership v Grant, clarified the issue of prioritising multiple security interest claims. The Court held the first registered interest takes priority over a latter perfected claim. The Court analysed section 66 of the Personal Property Securities Act 1999, which provides that priority is determined by which report was registered first, not by which claim is perfected first. The Court held section 66 was the guiding provision in establishing which party registered their interest first.