Background

Peter Oreb and Ingrid Webber were directors of a group of companies supplying workforce solutions to some of the largest corporations in the world. Four of the companies went into liquidation. Prior to the companies going into liquidation, Peter and Ingrid resigned as directors of those companies.

Last year, we reported that Australia had proposed significant insolvency reforms that, in our view, are long overdue ("A Major Leap Forward for Australian Insolvency Laws").

The statutory demand process is widely used by companies wishing to secure prompt payment of debts owing by companies registered in Australia. This article will look at a company's options for dealing with a statutory demand.

What is a statutory demand?

This week’s TGIF considers Fordyce v Ryan & Anor; Fordyce v Quinn & Anor [2016] QSC 307, where the Court considered whether a beneficiary’s interest in a discretionary trust amounted to ‘property’ for the purposes of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth).

BACKGROUND

If you are in the sticky situation where you need to recover debt from a company in liquidation, you will inevitably have a lot of questions. Can I even pursue the company? Will I receive any money back? What can I do? This article will explore how the liquidation process works, what process you need to follow to recover your debt, and what you need to prove to make a successful claim.

How Does Liquidation Work?

The New South Wales Court of Appeal recently handed down an important judgment on the remuneration of registered liquidators.

Sakr concerned an appeal by Sanderson as liquidator of Sakr against an order determining his remuneration on anad valorem basis, without reference to his time attendances or hourly rate.  Due to the importance of the issues, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) and Australian Restructuring Insolvency and Turnaround Association (ARITA) appeared and made submissions on the issue.

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.

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.

The New South Wales Supreme Court of Appeal's decision in Sanderson as Liquidator of Sakr Nominees [1] has given cause for optimism amongst insolvency practitioners. The decision confirms that the correct approach was taken by the Court inIdylic Solutions [2], bucking a trend in recent years of limiting or reducing practitioner remuneration by reference to a proportion of the funds recovered.

Everything or Nothing! That is what the Queensland Court of Appeal has told us recently when it comes to assessing what a creditor is really owed for the purposes of standing to wind up a company

Background

A dispute arose between two parties involved in the management of Treadtel International Pty Ltd (Treadtel) whereby a Mr Cocco asserted that one of the two issued shares in Treadtel was held on trust for his benefit by the sole director’s wife, Mrs Crosher, because of an alleged share sale agreement.