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.
In January 2014 I published an article titled “Directors Duties – Insolvent Trading: Five rules to deal with a company in financial difficulty” in which I called upon the Federal government to reform Australia’s harsh insolvent trading laws and bring in some protections against ipso facto clauses in order to facilitate the restructuring of businesses.
BACKGROUND
The statutory order of priority as it relates to a superannuation guarantee charge liability was considered in the New South Wales Supreme Court proceeding In the matter of Independent Contractor Services (Aust) Pty Limited ACN 119 186 971 (in liquidation) (No 2)[2016] NSWSC 106.
History
On 1 May 2014, the Creditor commenced proceedings against the Debtor for a sequestration order against his estate in respect of unpaid legal costs awarded by the Magistrates Court of Western Australia.
Various preliminary issues protracted the case, including:
WHAT HAPPENED?
In April 2013, the liquidators of Akron Roads Pty Limited (in liq) (Akron Liquidators) commenced proceedings against three former directors including Trevor Crewe (an Akron Director) and Crewe Sharp Pty Ltd (an alleged de-facto director) (the Directors) for breaches of the insolvent trading provisions of the Corporations Act 2001 (the Act).
This week’s TGIF considers the decision of Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Currey in which the Court looks at whether a breach of clause 25.1 of the Code of Banking Practice renders a guarantee void or voidable.
BACKGROUND
A bank lent money to a family company, which was secured by personal guarantees provided by the applicants.
This week’s TGIF considers a decision in which the Court held that an administrator who has unsuccessfully defended a proceeding may need to reinstate any remuneration previously received to satisfy the resultant costs order.
BACKGROUND
The deed administrator of a company subject to a Deed of Company Arrangement (DOCA) rejected proofs of debt submitted by a number of creditors. The creditors successfully appealed against the rejection of the proofs of debt.
With the release of its much anticipated National Innovation and Science Agenda (the NISA), the Federal Government has committed more than $1 billion over the next four years to turning around Australia’s innovation performance.
Australia’s poor record in translating research to commercial products and services is well known. We rank last amongst OECD countries for collaboration on innovation between industry and higher education and public research institutions.
Have the tough times in the construction industry changed? It would appear not despite an uptick in the New South Wales economy. “I just want to be paid” is the title of the report just released by the Senate Economics References Committee.[1]
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?