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

This week’s TGIF considers the decision of the Supreme Court of NSW in In the matter of Pacific Steelfixing Pty Ltd [2021] NSWSC 655, where a liquidator failed to adequately prove that payments to a creditor, during the relation back period, were voidable transactions because the Liquidator had not finalised investigations into the potential recovery claims available to him.

Key takeaways

This week’s TGIF examines a recent Federal Court decision which considered an application to discharge summonses issued pursuant to sections 596A and 596B of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

Key takeaways