In two recent Federal Court decisions, Chan v Four C Realty Pty Ltd (in liq), in the matter of Four C Realty Pty Ltd (in liq)[2013] FCA 928 and Chan v Four C Realty Pty Ltd (in liq), in the matter of Four C Realty Pty Ltd (in liq) (No 2)[2013] FCA 959, the Court considered the circumstances in which it will or will not interfere with the commercial judgment of a liquidator.

This week’s TGIF looks at In the matter of Gary John Anderson in his capacity as liquidator of G & G Contractors Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) [2021] FCA 1185, the latest of a line of Federal Court decisions confirming the approach to be taken by liquidators of trustee companies that have ceased to be trustees as a result of going into liquidation.

Key Takeaways

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:

In the recent decision of Wentworth Metals Group Pty Ltd v Leigh and Owen (as liquidators of Bonython Metals Group Pty Limited); In the matter of Bonython Metals Group Pty Ltd (In liq) [2013] FCA 349, the Federal Court considered the duties owed by a liquidator when selling assets and the circumstances in which a court should interfere with the decisions of a liquidator.

BACKGROUND

This week’s TGIF considers a decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales on whether leave should be granted for proceedings against a court-appointed liquidator personally.

Key Takeaways

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.

Pursuant to section 459A of the Corporations Act (the Act), a Court may order that an insolvent company be wound up in insolvency.  For such an order to be made, it is conventional practice that the applicant demonstrates insolvency at the date of filing the application and at the date of the hearing of the application.

This week’s TGIF considers the recent case of In the matter of Newheadspace Pty Limited (in liq) [2020] NSWSC 173, where the Supreme Court of New South Wales set aside a liquidator’s examination summonses on the grounds of an abuse of process and failure to satisfy s 596B of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

What happened?

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

The Facts

In this case the liquidators of Octaviar Administration had obtained an extension to the time for them to bring voidable transaction proceedings under section 588FF(1) of the Corporations Act (Extension Order). Before the expiration of the Extension Order, the liquidators sought a further extension under s588FF(3)(b) or, alternatively, asked the Court to vary the date in the Extension Order pursuant to the Court’s procedural powers under r 36.16 of Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) (UCPR).