The recent Australian Federal Court case of Neeat Holdings (in liq) [2013] FCA 61 considered the issue of whether the liquidator of a trustee company should be permitted to sell trust assets notwithstanding the appointment of a new trustee in substitution for the insolvent trustee company.
The Federal Court found that where a trust deed provides for the cessation of a corporate trustee upon the appointment of an administrator or upon a resolution for its liquidation (and there is no replacement trustee appointed), the corporate trustee retains its right of indemnity and continues as bare trustee but does not have the power to sell the trust assets. However, the Court was persuaded to grant relief to the liquidators of the trustee (who had sold trust assets) on the basis they had not been advised by their solicitors of the disqualification clause and they com
In the recent case MSI (Holdings) Pty Ltd v Mainstreet International Group Ltd, the Queensland Supreme Court confirmed that receivers of a company in liquidation can commence legal proceedings in the name of the company without leave of the court, when those proceedings relate to the recovery of secured property.
It is well established that if a trustee company goes into liquidation then:
The decision of Fielding as Liquidator of Lyngray Developments Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) v Dushas & Anor [2013] QCA55, overturned a Judgment at first instance where it was held that various payments made by a company to a close associate of a director of a company were not unreasonable director related transactions pursuant to Section 588 FE(6).
The Court of Appeal held that the payments did constitute unreasonable director related transactions and this decision provides guidance as to:
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
MSI (Holdings) Pty Ltd (Receivers Appointed) (in Liquidation) ACN 120 419 409 (MSI) against Mainstreet International Group Limited (Mainstreet) ACN 120 747 124.
The appeal was brought by the Receivers, who sought to recover a debt for the secured creditor once a liquidator had been appointed to MSI.
The Court of Appeal handed down the decision recently in favour of MSI.
Facts of the case
In the recent decision of MSI (Holdings) Pty Ltd v Mainstreet International Group Ltd [2013] QCA 27, the Court of Appeal considered the meaning and application of sections 471B and 471C of the Corporations Act.
BACKGROUND
The decision involved receivers who were appointed to MSI (Holdings) Pty Ltd (receivers appointed) (in liquidation) (MSI) by Central Coast Projects Pty Ltd (Central Coast) pursuant to a charge it held over all property, assets and rights of MSI.
On 19 April 2013, the Federal Court of Australia handed down its judgment in Eopply New Energy Technology Co Ltd v EP Solar Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 356. The Court enforced a foreign award against a company in liquidation, in the latest evidence of Australia’s pro-arbitration environment.
Background
This is the second case in which the New South Wales Supreme Court has granted an extension of time for registration of a security interest on the Personal Property Securities Register where the delay is accidental or due to inadvertence. However, the extension in this case was conditional firstly, by preserving the priority of another security interest which had been registered in the meantime and secondly, because there was insufficient evidence of the financial position of the grantor to establish that an extension was unlikely to prejudice other creditors or shareholde