This week’s TGIF considers a recent decision in which the Court directed that liquidators would be justified in utilising trust funds to conduct further investigations to identify and pursue potential claims available to a trustee.

WHAT HAPPENED?

The plaintiffs were appointed as voluntary administrators of the trustee company (Trustee) and subsequently became its liquidators. The Trustee acted as responsible entity and trustee within a corporate group that funded property investment and development activities.

This week’s TGIF examines the NSW Supreme Court decision In the Matter of Kevin Jacobsen Pty Limited (in liq) [2016] NSWSC 538 which considered a challenge to an application under s 477(2B) to assign a cause of action.

WHAT HAPPENED?

On 10 August 2015, the liquidators of Kevin Jacobsen Pty Limited (in liquidation) (KJPL) applied to the NSW Supreme Court for:

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?

WHAT HAPPENED?

On 4 February 2013, Stansfield DIY Wealth Pty Ltd (in liquidation) was wound up, and a liquidator was appointed. At that time, the only function of the company was acting as trustee of a self-managed superannuation fund. It had no assets or liabilities, save in its capacity as trustee of the super fund.

In Rathner in his capacity as Official Liquidator of Kalimand Pty Ltd (in liq) v Hawthorn [2014] FCA 1067, the Federal Court considered the elements of voidable transactions under Pt 5.7B of the Corporations Act, and the meaning of becoming insolvent “because of” entering into a transaction.

In Stewart v Atco Controls Pty Limited (in liquidation) [2014] HCA 15, the High Court confirmed the Universal Distributing principle that a liquidator is entitled to be paid his or her remuneration and expenses in realising assets in priority to a secured creditor.

BACKGROUND

Section 560 of the Corporations Act provides that a person who loans money to a company in liquidation, for the purposes of making a payment towards employee wages and other employee benefits, will have the same right of priority as the employees would have had in the winding up of the company.

The recent New South Wales Supreme Court (Court) decision in Plaza West Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (subject to a deed of company arrangement) [2013] NSWSC 168 involved an application to terminate the winding up of a company subject to a deed of company arrangement (DOCA) and emphasised the importance of comprehensive reports from the company’s administrators and experts, in deciding that application.

Background

This week’s TGIF examines a recent NSW Supreme Court decision that illustrates the circumstances in which a person will be regarded as a ‘de facto director’ and the duties owed to creditors when facing insolvency.

Key takeaways

A prohibition order in place on a development in Hassall Street, Parramatta, NSW, serves as a useful reminder for developers, builders and financiers of the importance of complying with the requirements of the Design and Building Practitioners Act 2020 (NSW) (DBP Act) and the Residential Apartment Buildings (Compliance and Enforcement Powers) Act 2020 (NSW) (RAB Act) (together, the Acts) (and the consequences of non-compliance).