This week’s TGIF considers a recent Federal Court decision where the Court found a company’s general purpose liquidators had not acted unreasonably in opposing an application that special purpose liquidators also be appointed.

Background

In Carrello,^[1] the Federal Court granted a warrant under section 530C of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the Act) allowing the liquidator of Drilling Australia Pty Ltd (the Company) to search and seize property, books and records located in storage containers belonging to the Company.

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

The Federal Court has considered whether a deed of company arrangement (DoCA) binds a regulator. The case involved an application by the Fair Work Ombudsman (FWO) for leave to proceed against a company in liquidation. The Court rejected the company’s argument that the FWO’s claims were extinguished by the DoCA and granted the FWO leave to pursue the claim. The outcome of the proceedings may impact the types of, and circumstances in which, claims by a regulator will not be extinguished by a DoCA.

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.