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.
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.
Japan
Report published on ensuring fair and timely disclosure of information to investors. The FSA announced that the Task Force on Fair Disclosure Rule of the Working Group on Financial Markets of the Financial System Council has published the “Report - Ensuring fair and timely disclosure of information to investors.” (3/3/2017)
Hong Kong
In a much anticipated judgment, the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of NSW has delivered good news for insolvency practitioners concerning their remuneration. This news will be particularly welcome for those practitioners who accept appointments over small to medium sized companies.
In November 2016, the High Court of Australia heard a challenge brought by Clive Palmer in respect of the constitutional validity of the power of a liquidator to examine a former director of a company before the court. At the conclusion of that hearing, Kiefel J, as her Honour then was, stated that the Court was unanimously of the view that the challenge had failed and that reasons would be published later. Yesterday the High Court published those reasons.
The proceedings
An Australian Tale
2017 is shaping up to be a challenging year for insolvency practitioners in Australia, from the Insolvency Law Reform Act 2016 (Cth) (ILRA), which comes with a raft of reforms to practitioner remuneration and creditors' powers, to the new ASIC 'user pay' funding model which could potentially impact negatively on insolvency practitioners and the Fair Entitlements Guarantee (FEG) Recovery Program's pursuit of claims against insolvency practitioners.
Liquidators can rest assured that courts are reluctant to interfere in their commercial judgments or permit liquidators to be personally exposed to mandatory examinations under s596ACorporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act).
Whether an insured had misrepresented and/or failed to disclose to an insurer that its professional services encompassed directors and officers services.
In Issue
- Non-Disclosure and misrepresentations by insureds
- Consideration of sections 21 and 26 of the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 (Cth)
The Background
A recent Western Australian Supreme Court case considered the insolvency of a partnership comprised of corporate members. When a partnership is formally dissolved, the partnership assets are realised by a court-appointed receiver, who will realise and distribute the assets in accordance with the relevant State partnership legislation. Senior Associate, Stefano Calabretta and Lawyer, Brendan May discussion this scenario further.