The Federal Court of Australia recently struck off an insolvency practitioner from the register of liquidators and restrained him for ten years for acting as an insolvency practitioner. The case concerns the conduct of David Iannuzi, who the Court found had "repeatedly fell short of the standards that would ordinarily be expected of him as a competent registered liquidator". The judgment sets out in detail the conduct that the Court found to be unsatisfactory and serves as a reminder of the standards expected of liquidators.

Background

In Short

The Situation: Should liquidators be personally liable for the costs of unsuccessful appeals, without an entitlement to reimbursement by the company or its creditors in relation to those costs?

The Conclusion: The general rule providing a liquidator immunity from personal costs orders and entitling a liquidator to be indemnified from the assets of the company for their own costs, and for the costs of the other party, does not apply when a liquidator initiates an unsuccessful appeal.

This week’s TGIF considers the Federal Court’s decision of In the matter of Boka Beverages Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) [2019] FCA 1184, regarding an application for the appointment of special purpose liquidators.

What happened?

In a decision of the Federal Court handed down on 18 October 2019 in Masters v Lombe (Liquidator); In the Matter of Babcock & Brown Limited (In Liquidation) [2019] FCA 1720, Foster J held that Babcock & Brown Limited (BBL) did not breach the continuous disclosure obligations in the Corporations Act 2001 and the ASX Listing Rules.

This week’s TGIF examines a recent decision of the NSW Supreme Court which considered whether funds held in certain bank accounts of a failed Ponzi scheme should be returned to investors or paid to creditors of the companies.

What happened?

Since freezing orders were obtained by ASIC in 2017, details surrounding the infamous Courtenay House ‘Ponzi’ scheme operated from a small office at Westfield in Bondi have slowly emerged.

This week’s TGIF considers a recent application to the Queensland Supreme Court for judicial advice as to whether certain proofs of debt should be rejected due to the rule against double proofs.

Background

In Short

The Situation: A liquidator can reject a "double proof" for what is, in substance, the same debt as another accepted proof of debt.

The Question: When are liquidators justified in rejecting what could arguably be a double proof?

In Short

The Situation: Should liquidators be removed under section 90-15 of the Insolvency Practice Schedule (Corporations) in circumstances where they engaged in preappointment discussions with a secured creditor, allegedly failed to investigate the company's affairs promptly, and retained the company's preappointment solicitors?

This week’s TGIF considers the decision in ACN 093 117 232 Pty Ltd (In Liq) v Intelara Engineering Consultants Pty Ltd (In Liq) [2019] FCA 1489, where the Court determined that a transaction described as a ‘legal phoenix’ by the advising practitioner was, in fact, an uncommercial transaction and an unreasonable director related transaction.

What happened?

Upon being appointed, insolvency practitioners are often faced with existing litigation involving the company or person they have been appointed to.

There are a multitude of factors that the practitioner needs to consider in relation to existing litigation. This article sets out some key considerations for administrators, liquidators, receivers and trustees in bankruptcy, as well as the practical steps a practitioner should follow. Although the article refers to practitioners appointed to companies, the principles are also generally applicable for Bankruptcy Trustees.