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:
Introduction
In most cases, the precondition for the appointment of a liquidator and the winding up of a company by a court is that a company is insolvent. However, in some cases courts will make these orders in the context of a shareholders dispute where there is a management deadlock or a breakdown in trust and confidence between shareholders. Additionally, a court may make these orders where there has been serious fraud or mismanagement in the conduct of a company’s affairs.
Relevant law
This week’s TGIF considers the decision of Crowe-Maxwell v Frost [2016] NSWCA 46 in which the Court held that a liquidator did not discharge his onus of proving relevant transactions were unreasonable director-related transactions.
BACKGROUND
This week’s TGIF considers the recent decision of the Federal Court which concerned the proper distribution of sale proceeds and whether those proceeds comprised part of the “property of the company”
WHAT HAPPENED?
Bamboo Direct Pty Limited (Bamboo), a company engaged in the business of purchasing and importing solar hot water heaters and solar panels, was placed into liquidation on 11 July 2012.
Key Points:
Although they should always keep time-frames very much in mind, the decision in BKA Practice Co Pty Ltd gives liquidators greater scope to find all possible time-frames in which they have to work.
Introduction
In most cases, the precondition for the appointment of a liquidator and the winding up of a company by a court is that a company is insolvent. However, in some cases courts will make these orders in the context of a shareholders dispute where there is a management deadlock or a breakdown in trust and confidence between shareholders. Additionally, a court may make these orders where there has been serious fraud or mismanagement in the conduct of a company’s affairs.
Relevant law
In a decision which potentially increases the assets available to liquidator and bankruptcy trustee plaintiffs, the High Court in CGU Insurance v Blakeley1 has recently determined that plaintiffs may seek to join insurers to proceedings in circumstances where indemnity under the insurance contract is denied and the defendants to the primary claim are bankrupt or being wound up or likely to become so as a result of the claim.
CGU Insurance Limited v Blakeley [2016] HCA 2
Liquidators brought action against company directors under s 588M(2) of Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) – Liquidators sought to join third party insurer after insurer denied liability – Supreme Court had jurisdiction to grant declaratory relief on liquidators’ application – Meaning of justiciable controversy
Executive summary
On 11 February 2016 the High Court delivered a unanimous judgment1 which clears the path for liquidators and others to join insurers of defendants to proceedings, enabling the determination at the same trial as to whether an insurer has an obligation to indemnify defendants in respect of any liability that may be found against those defendants.
Introduction
It sometimes happens that stakeholders become disgruntled with the liquidator appointed to wind up the affairs of a company. So, what can be done?
There is power in s 473(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) for the court to remove (and replace) a liquidator. But, how hard is this process?
Discussion of recent Federal Court case