This week’s TGIF considers the recent NSW Supreme Court decision of Westpac Bank v Raflick Sayah [2015] NSWC 1167, provides comfort to banks and their receivers in that it validated the actions of a Receiver who had obtained expert advice on a sale process and had undertaken a thorough process.

THE FACTS

BACKGROUND

Mr Featherstone was recorded as director of Ashala Pty Ltd (Ashala) from 10 March 2004 to 7 October 2005 and from 28 November 2005 to 12 December 2005. Ashala occupied premises which Mr Featherstone owned as trustee for his family trust.

On 7 October 2005, Mr Featherstone agreed to transfer his shares in Ashala and two other related companies to Ms Kristy Marks and for Ms Marks to become the sole director of the three companies. This agreement was recorded in an “agreement letter” and ASIC was notified accordingly.

On 11 September 2014, the Supreme Court of New South Wales delivered judgment in Allco Funds Management Limited (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (In Liquidation) v Trust Company (RE Services) Limited (in its capacity as responsible entity and trustee of the Australian Wholesale Property Fund) [2014] NSWSC 1251.

The decision reminds directors of the risks associated with their involvement in transactions where they are in a position of conflict.

BACKGROUND

The recent WA Supreme Court decision in White v Spiers Earthworks Pty Ltd [2014] WASC 139, highlights the consequences of not registering a security interest under the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (PPSA) when a company becomes insolvent.

The case also provides guidance about certain PPSA savings provisions, the treatment of transitional security interests and the primacy of PPSA over pre-PPSA legislation.

BACKGROUND

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 considers the decision of In the matter of Bryve Resources Pty Ltd [2022] NSWSC 647, which illustrates the circumstances in which liquidators can recover payments made by the company to, or for the benefit of, directors.

Key takeaways

This week’s TGIF examines the decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales in In the matter of Jana Pty Ltd [2022] NSWSC 112, considering whether a ‘genuine dispute’ exists  in relation to a debt claimed in a statutory demand where the debt arises from a poorly drafted deed.

Key Takeaways

This week’s TGIF considers the recent ruling of the Federal Court of Australia in Tuscan Capital Partners Pty Ltd v Trading Australia Pty Ltd (in liq)[2021] FCA 1061, where a liquidator’s decision to accept a ‘proof of debt’ was successfully challenged due to a lack of evidence that

This week’s TGIF considers an application to wind up a company on just and equitable grounds. The Court declined to make the order, finding the suggested deadlock had an air of artificiality and the application was infused with self-interest.

Key takeaways

This week’s TGIF considers the decision in Cant v Mad Brothers Earthmoving Pty Ltd[2020] VSCA 198, where the Court of Appeal refused to find that a payment made by a third party on behalf of an insolvent company was an unfair preference.

Key takeaways