This week’s TGIF considers Clive Palmer’s recent challenges to the constitutionality of the Court’s power under the Corporations Act to issue examination summonses.

What happened?

On 18 January 2016, administrators were appointed to Queensland Nickel Pty Ltd (QNI) pursuant to s 436A of the Corporations Act 2001 (Act). The creditors subsequently resolved that QNI be voluntarily wound up and the administrators were appointed as liquidators (the General Purpose Liquidators).

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.

BACKGROUND

Administrators were appointed to a company and as a result, the company entered into a Deed of Company Arrangement (DOCA). 

After the DOCA had been entered into, a secured creditor who had abstained from voting on the decision of whether the company should enter into the DOCA, purported to appoint an administrator under its security. 

The deed administrators sought a declaration from the Court that the second administration should be terminated (amongst other things). 

DECISION

A recent decision by Justice Beech of the Western Australian Supreme Court in Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd v James [2015] WASC 10[1] has considered the issue of whether an adjudication determination made under the Construction Contracts Act 2004 (WA) (the Construction Contracts Act) can be enforced by an insolvent company.

SUMMARY

The recent appeal decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court in ASIC v Franklin (liquidator) and ors [2014] FCAFC 85 reinforces the importance of the independence of liquidators and also provides further guidance on the contents of declarations of independence, relevant relationships and indemnities (known as a “DIRRI”) by administrators.

The recent Victorian Supreme Court decision of Le Roi Homestyle Cookies Pty Ltd (in liquidation) v Gemmell [2013] VSC 452 determined that a person who does not claim privilege when being publicly examined by a liquidator will not be allowed to avoid pleading and providing discovery in subsequent civil proceedings on the basis that complying may expose them to a civil penalty or criminal sanction.

Facts

The defendants were alleged former de facto and shadow directors of Le Roi Homestyle Pty Ltd.

The recent Federal Court of Australia decision in Yu v STX Pan Ocean Co Ltd (South Korea), in the matter of STX Pan Ocean Co Ltd (receivers appointed in South Korea) [2013] FCA 680, highlights that the Court will be reluctant to grant additional relief to a foreign representative under the Cross Border Insolvency Act 2008 (Cth) where the additional relief sought would adversely affect the rights of creditors.

Facts

This week’s TGIF considers a decision of Georges (Liquidator), in the Matter of SIRA Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) [2022] FCA 768, in which liquidators were granted leave to serve a summons for examination on a company based in Singapore.

Key takeaways

This week’s TGIF considers the recent Queensland Supreme Court decision in CGS Constructions (Qld) Pty Ltd [2022] QSC 28 where it dismissed an application to restrain liquidators from engaging the same solicitors as a major creditor to conduct public examinations.

Key Takeaways

This week’s TGIF considers a recent decision that provides guidance on how and when a liquidator can sell partnership assets held by an insolvent corporate partnership manager to satisfy creditors’ claims.

Key Takeaways