A liquidator has many competing duties and pressures in the performance of their role. Can the failure to make a simple phone call be a breach of those duties?
The decision in In the matter of Independent Contractor Services (Aust) could mean more reliance upon fair entitlements guarantee funding provided by the Commonwealth in relation to the liquidation of trading trusts.
Last Friday, Justice Brereton finally published his reasons in Sakr Nominees Pty Ltd [2016] NSWSC 709, the latest in a series of controversial decisions on insolvency practitioner remuneration.
In Sakr, consistently with his Honour’s previous remuneration decisions:
On 23 February 2016, Justice Brereton in the New South Wales Supreme Court handed down the decision in the matter ofIndependent Contractor Services (Aust) Pty Ltd ACN 119 186 971 (in liquidation) (No 2) [2016] NSWSC 106.
This is an important judgment, with significant consequences for the insolvency community.
The decision deals with two fundamental aspects of insolvency law, being:
On 1 June 2016 the Victorian Court of Appeal delivered its judgment in Timbercorp Finance Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) (Timbercorp) v Collins (Collins) and Tomes (Tomes) [2016] VSCA 128, the latest in a string of Timbercorp cases.
The latest decision was preceded by a class action which went all the way to the High Court in which the investors lost their claim against Timbercorp for misleading representations.
In the matter of Fat 4 Pty Limited (In Liquidation)
A recent case in the Supreme Court of Victoria has provided some relief for liquidators seeking to add a defendant to a voidable transaction claim after the expiry of the limitation period in circumstances where the wrong defendant was sued by mistake. In such circumstances, liquidators can substitute the incorrect party for the desired defendant without being time barred by s 588FF(3) of the Corporations Act, irrespective of whether the liquidator’s mistake as to the correct party was reasonable.
Bell Group N. V (in liquidation) v Western Australia [2016] HCA 21
Alan Bond passed away last year, but the legal battles over the 1990 collapse of his Bell Group companies may yet continue. The High Court has declared state legislation, which was designed to end the long-running litigation by short-circuiting certain aspects of the Corporations Act 2001 (C’th), constitutionally invalid.
Background
This week’s TGIF considers the decision in Hussain v CSR Building Products Limited, in the matter of FPJ Group Pty Ltd (In Liq), in which an ROT clause was held to be a “security”, defeating the liquidators’ unfair preference claim.
Background
On 18 July 2014, FPJ Group Pty Ltd (FPJ Group) was wound up in insolvency.
The recent decision of the New South Wales Supreme Court in Independent Contractor Services (Aust) Pty Limited ACN 119 186 971 (in liquidation) (no 2) [2016] NSWSC 106 found that the statutory scheme of priority does not apply to realisations from circulating trust assets. This decision has potentially profound impacts for both employees and secured creditors in the context of both liquidations and receiverships.
A summary of the case
This week’s TGIF examines the NSW Supreme Court decision In the Matter of Kevin Jacobsen Pty Limited (in liq) [2016] NSWSC 538 which considered a challenge to an application under s 477(2B) to assign a cause of action.
WHAT HAPPENED?
On 10 August 2015, the liquidators of Kevin Jacobsen Pty Limited (in liquidation) (KJPL) applied to the NSW Supreme Court for: