Can a builder that is in liquidation take advantage of the security of payment regime? Not according to a 2016 decision of the Court of Appeal in Victoria, but last month the NSW Court of Appeal reached a different conclusion. In our latest Corrs High Vis podcast, Samuel Woff and Ryan Shlah sit down with presenter Wayne Jocic to discuss the two cases, and the approach taken by each Court.
This week’s TGIF considers the case ofMighty River International Ltd v Hughes, where the High Court upheld the validity of Holding DOCAs.
Case history
This case concerned the validity of a deed of company arrangement (DOCA) between Mesa Minerals Ltd (Mesa) and its creditors.
This week’s TGIF considers the Victorian Court of Appeal’s decision in Blakeley v CGU Insurance Ltd [2017] VSCA 378, which confirms the rights of third parties to seek direct access to proceeds of insurance.
The decision confirms that, in certain circumstances, third party creditors can commence proceedings against a defendant and also join the defendant’s insurers to those proceedings.
This week’s TGIF considers whether a flexible payment arrangement between a subsidiary and its holding company creditor meant the parent suffered no loss on the insolvency of the subsidiary.
What happened?
On 17 August 2017, the West Australian Court of Appeal published its reasons in Perrine v Carrello [2017] WASCA 151 drawing a close to the long-running dispute between the Perrines and the liquidator (Liquidator) of their failed pod-home building company (PodCo).
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.
This week’s TGIF considers Clive Palmer’s recent challenges to the constitutionality of the Court’s power under the Corporations Act to issue examination summonses.
What happened?
On 18 January 2016, administrators were appointed to Queensland Nickel Pty Ltd (QNI) pursuant to s 436A of the Corporations Act 2001 (Act). The creditors subsequently resolved that QNI be voluntarily wound up and the administrators were appointed as liquidators (the General Purpose Liquidators).
Victorian Supreme Court rules that the appointment of an administrator was invalid, void and of no effect because the directors did not genuinely believe the company was insolvent and appointed the administrator for an improper purpose.
BACKGROUND
Hudson v Signalla [2015] FCAFC 140 confirms that leave of the court is not required under s58(3) Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) to sue a former bankrupt in respect of what was a provable debt in the bankruptcy, after an annulment of the bankruptcy by way of a composition under ss73 and 74 of the Bankrupcty Act.
BACKGROUND
A bankrupt had his bankruptcy annulled by way of presentation of a composition that was accepted by participating creditors (Composition).
This week’s TGIF examines a High Court decision which confirmed the power of a court under s 588FF(3) of the Corporations Act to extend the time for the commencement of voidable transaction proceedings, without identifying the particular transaction or transactions to which the extension would apply.
In Sharpe v WH Bailey & Sons Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 921, Justice Gleeson found that the Farm Debt Mediation Act 1994 (NSW) (FDM Act) did not operate to prevent an individual from pursuing their rights under the Bankruptcy Act1966 (Cth), even though those rights may have been related to a farm mortgage. In doing so, Justice Gleeson confirmed that the Bankruptcy Act1966 (Cth) will have priority over the FDM Act where the requirements of section 5 of the FDM Act are met.
FACTS