The Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Enterprise Incentives No. 2) Act 2017 (the Act) received royal assent on 18 September 2017.
This week’s TGIF considers what the UK decision of Simpkin v The Berkeley Group Holdings PLC [2017] EWHC 1472 means for insolvency practitioners seeking to access potentially privileged documents created by employees of appointee companies.
BACKGROUND
This week’s TGIF considers a decision of the Victorian Supreme Court which examined the merits of appointing special purpose liquidators in circumstances where a creditor was only willing to fund investigations if the appointment was made.
What happened?
In May and June 2016, two registered education and training organisations (together, the RTOs) were placed into liquidation.
This week’s TGIF considers Britax Childcare Pty Ltd, in the matter of Infa Products Pty Ltd v Infa Products Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) [2016] FCA 848 which considers setting aside a DOCA and the administrator’s casting vote.
FACTS OF THIS CASE
After complex litigation with Britax, Infa Products lost the case and as a direct consequence, appointed administrators.
WHAT HAPPENED?
Rahan Constructions Pty Ltd (Rahan) was contracted to undertake commercial construction and other works in about April 2012. On or about this date, Rahan entered into a credit account with Asset Flooring Pty Ltd (Asset Flooring). Rahan’s obligations under this credit account were personally guaranteed by the respondent, Mr North.
On 30 July 2013, Rahan was wound up by order of the court and Asset Flooring sought to enforce the guarantee for the outstanding balance owing under the credit account.
This week’s TGIF considers a decision in which the court appointed an additional liquidator to conduct further investigations alongside the incumbent liquidators in a creditors’ voluntary winding up.
WHAT HAPPENED?
On 18 July 2014, liquidators were appointed to Ambient Advertising Pty Ltd (Ambient) pursuant to the resolution of creditors under section 439C(c) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).
The recent Supreme Court of NSW decision In the matter of Anglican Development Fund Diocese of Bathurst Board (recs and mgrs apptd) [2015] NSWSC 6, confirms that a board of directors’ residual powers in receivership include consenting to judgment in favour of a creditor.
BACKGROUND
In the decision of Saker, in the matter of Great Southern Limited[2014] FCA 771, the Federal Court of Australia held that statutory obligations, not trust obligations, require receivers and liquidators to hold and apply funds for the benefit of employees pursuant to s 561 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).
FACTS
It goes without saying that it is important for an insolvency practitioner to be independent and to be seen to be independent when accepting an appointment or continuing to act in an existing appointment. The recent Federal Court decision of ASIC v Franklin [2014] FCA 68 provides some welcome guidance on what this means in practice and also on the contents of a declaration of independence, relevant relationships and indemnities (commonly known as a “DIRRI”).
FACTS
In the decision of Allied Express Transport Pty Ltd v Exalt Group Pty Ltd (Administrator Appointed) (No 2) [2013] FCA 477, Exalt Group Pty Ltd (Exalt) sought an adjournment of a winding up application under s440A(2) of the Corporations Act on the basis that the creditors had voted by a majority in favour of a resolution that Exalt enter into a DOCA.