The High Court recently delivered judgment in the matter of Stewart v Atco Controls Pty Ltd (In Liquidation).[1] The case turned on the application of the well-known principle in Universal Distributing
Liquidators are commonly appointed to a company where, prior to liquidation the company was a trustee of a trust. Often when the liquidators are appointed, the company has ceased to be the trustee and a replacement trustee has not been appointed.
In these circumstances, the company in liquidation is a bare trustee in relation to the trust assets and the liquidator will assume this role until a replacement trustee is appointed. Often a replacement trustee is not appointed.
Does the liquidator as bare trustee have a power to sell trust assets?
When the liquidator of a company comes knocking on a creditor’s door, it is to echoes of "Queue jumper!" reverberating in the background.
Essentially, one of a liquidator's first tasks when appointed is to identify whether any creditors have been given 'preferential treatment' - that is, whether they have been paid some or all of their debt just prior to the company's liquidation and at the expense of other creditors.
Stewart v ATCO Controls Pty Ltd (in Liq) [2014] HCA 15
The High Court has unanimously confirmed the position originally set out in In re Universal Distributing Co Ltd (In Liq) (1933) 48 CLR 171, finding that a secured creditor may not have the benefit of a fund created by a liquidator without the liquidator's costs and expenses of creating that fund first being met.
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
Stewart v Atco Controls Pty Ltd (in liquidation) [2014] HCA 15
The High Court has held unanimously that a liquidator is entitled to an equitable lien over settlement monies for litigation expenses which the liquidator incurred for the purpose of impugning a secured creditor’s charge, applying and confirming the principle in Universal Distributing in the process.
The High Court has recently affirmed the existence and scope of a liquidator’s equitable lien in Stewart v Atco Controls Pty Limited (in liquidation) [2014] HCA 15.
A liquidator is entitled to an equitable lien for the costs, charges and expenses (including the liquidator’s remuneration) incurred by the liquidator in realising assets brought into the estate, which lien takes priority over a creditor’s security: Re Universal Distributing Co Ltd (in liquidation) [1933] HCA 2.
Akers as a joint representative of Saad Investments Company Limited (in Official Liquidation) v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [2014] FCAFC 57
The Full Federal Court has confirmed a “modified universalism” approach to cross-border insolvencies, and provided guidance on what is required for the “adequate protection” of rights of local creditors under the Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency (‘Model Law’), as enacted in Australia by the Cross-Border Insolvency Act 2008 (Cth).
The recent decision of Australian Building Systems Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation [2014] FCA 116 involves a significant development in the taxation collection obligations of liquidators involved in winding up a company.
In this Alert, Special Counsel Justin Byrne and Solicitor Rachael Nyst discuss the implications of the case in regard to the need to retain an amount from sale proceeds of a property in order to meet capital gains tax (CGT) liabilities.
Key points
Approximately 11 years ago, largely as a result of public resentment of bonuses being paid to directors of insolvent companies, the Corporations Act was amended by the Corporations Amendment (Re-Payment of Director’s Bonuses) Act 2003. The amendment made it possible for liquidators to not only seek to recover director bonuses but to also recover any “unreasonable director-related transactions” pursuant to the newly added section 588FDA of the Corporations Act.
Legislation