Did you know that a liquidator of a foreign company may seek the assistance of the Hong Kong Court to obtain orders for the production of information which orders are, in substance, of the type made in Hong Kong windings-up under section 221(3) of the Companies (Winding-up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance?

High Court says "Yes"

Need to know

In a win for creditors of insolvent companies, on 10 December 2015 the High Court determined that the obligation of a liquidator under section 254(1)(d) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth) (1936 Act) to retain sufficient funds to pay tax on assets realised during the winding up only arises after a tax assessment has been made. If the funds are distributed prior to a tax assessment being made, then the obligation does not arise.

Update on Liquidator remuneration post-Sakr1

Key points summary

Following the recent high-profile appeal decision2, the Supreme Court of New South Wales has now finalised the saga that was the review and approval of the remuneration of the Liquidator of Sakr Nominees.

From that decision emerge several key points for insolvency professionals when considering their remuneration:

Liquidators, administrators and receivers in Queensland are on notice that they may face serious personal consequences if they fail to cause companies to which they are appointed to comply with Environmental Protection Orders (EPOs).

Re Linc Energy Limited (In Liquidation) [2017] QSC 53 (13 April 2017) has determined that liquidators may not be able to escape obligations under an EPO by issuing a disclaimer notice.

Litigation funding can form a useful part of the arsenal of an insolvency practitioner when attempting to maximise the return to creditors. Yet funders can be met with suspicion by creditors and courts alike, depending on the country in which you pursue your litigation.

This break out session sought to highlight key issues for funders and borrowers, and regional differences in how litigation funding is perceived and applied.

Court of Appeal sets the record straight

The key point 

Earlier today, a full bench of the New South Wales Court of Appeal handed down a significant decision affecting approach to judicial review and approval of liquidator remuneration. Significantly, existing tension between decisions of different judges at first instance, and between NSW and Federal courts, has been resolved.

This week’s TGIF considers an interlocutory decision of Ball J in the NSW Supreme Court in Aqua Botanical Beverages (Australia) Pty Ltd v Botanical Water Technologies Pty Ltd [2022] NSWSC 435, in which the Court dismissed an application to add an oppression claim where the company went into liquidation after commencing proceedings.

Key Takeaways

This week’s TGIF considers Linc Energy Ltd (in Liq) v Chief Executive Dept of Environment & Heritage Protection [2017] QSC 53, in which the Queensland Supreme Court directed that the liquidators of Linc Energy were not justified in causing it to fail to comply with an environmental protection order

BACKGROUND

The decision of the Queensland Supreme Court (Court) in International Cat Manufacturing Pty Ltd (in liq) & Anor v Rodrick & Ors [2013] QSC 307 is a reminder that liquidators who commence proceedings may be personally liable for costs of the proceeding where they are unsuccessful in their claim.

FACTS

This week’s TGIF focuses on The Australian Sawmilling Company Pty Ltd (in liq) v Environment Protection Authority [2021] VSCA 294 in which the Court set aside a disclaimer of onerous property, such that liquidators were held liable under environment protection legislation.

Key Takeaways