This week’s TGIF examines a recent decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales which considered whether payments made by a third party to a company’s creditors could be recovered as unfair preferences.

What happened?

On 2 September 2015, liquidators were appointed to a building and construction company (the Company) and later commenced proceedings against eight defendants for the recovery of payments considered to be unfair preferences.

This week’s TGIF considers In the matter of ACN 151 726 224 Pty Ltd (in liq) [2016] NSWSC 1801, where the Court dismissed a creditor’s application to remove liquidators who had refused to conduct public examinations of a director.

What happened?

On 18 November 2015, the District Court of New South Wales entered judgment against Ridley Capital Holdings Pty Limited (the Company) in the amount of $660,862.62.

This week’s TGIF considers the most recent decision in a line of cases which hold that the provisions of the Code of Banking Practice may be incorporated into loan agreements, as well as guarantees given by individuals.

BACKGROUND

This week’s TGIF considers the decision of Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Currey in which the Court looks at whether a breach of clause 25.1 of the Code of Banking Practice renders a guarantee void or voidable.

BACKGROUND

A bank lent money to a family company, which was secured by personal guarantees provided by the applicants. 

BACKGROUND

FACTS

InKitay, in the matter of South West Kitchens (WA) Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 670, Mr Kitay was appointed liquidator of South West Kitchens (WA) Pty Ltd (SW Kitchens) by voluntary winding up. SW Kitchens was trustee of a trust and owned all its assets as trustee of that trust. The trust deed provided that SW Kitchens was disqualified from acting as trustee if it was wound up.

The decision Akers as a joint foreign representative of Saad Investments Company Limited (in Official Liquidation) v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [2014] FCAFC 57 demonstrates that Australian Courts may be willing to depart from the philosophical basis for cross border insolvency in order to protect the interests of Australian based creditors.

Background

In Lehman Brothers Australia Limited, in the matter of Lehman Brothers Australia Limited (in liquidation) (No 2) [2013] FCA 965, the Federal Court again confirmed that schemes of arrangement are a viable restructuring tool to compromise claims involving a class of creditors and third parties.

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).

This week’s TGIF considers Krejci, in the matter of Union Standard International Group Pty Limited (in liq) (No 7) [2022] FCA 890, in which the Federal Court gave liquidators approval to conduct extensive and expensive public examinations despite there being limited expected return to creditors, in part to try and uncover the truth behind $585 million that cannot be accounted for in the company’s dealings.

Key takeaways