The recent Federal Magistrate’s decision in Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Oswal [2012] FMCA 1082 reminds us that leaving a jurisdiction does not mean leaving your business behind, including the business of paying debts.

Background

Mr Oswal guaranteed a loan of $27 million from the Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA) to Garuda Aviation Pty Ltd (Garuda) for the purchase of a jet plane.  Mr Oswal was, and remains, a director of Garuda.

In Carey v Korda [2012] WASCA 228, the Supreme Court of Western Australia Court of Appeal confirmed the rights of receivers to claim legal professional privilege.  A little over a year ago, we considered the first instance judgment in a previous TGIF article. 

THE BACKGROUND FACTS

A recent High Court judgment illustrates potential issues when the same liquidator(s) are appointed to Australian and New Zealand companies.

Australian liquidators were appointed to the Cedenco group of companies, two of which were New Zealand companies and three Australian. They sought orders requiring delivery of documents and for the companies’ relationship manager at ANZ to attend for a second examination. One of the arguments against this was that the New Zealand companies' creditors were likely to be paid in full.

Summary

In Carey v Korda [2012] WASCA 228, the Western Australian Supreme Court of Appeal (Court) has provided a timely confirmation that legal advisers engaged by receivers to provide advice in relation to a receivership are properly viewed as advisers to the receivers as principal, and not the mortgagor company.

The decision will no doubt be welcomed by insolvency practitioners, as it confirms that the legal advice, and the right to invoke the associated privilege, belongs to the receivers, not the mortgagor company.

The recent Federal Court of Australia (Court) decision in KASH Aboriginal Corporation ICN 108 (Administrators Appointed) No 2 [2012] FCA 789 confirms that an administrator of a company who acts honestly and reasonably may be protected from personal liability for any debts incurred while carrying out an administration.

Background

The recent Supreme Court of Victoria decision in Lofthouse v Environmental Consultants International Pty Ltd & Ors [2012] VSC 416 outlines the factors the Court will take into account when considering whether to make a pooling order and considers when a liquidator may be remunerated out of the assets of pooled companies.

Background

The Federal Magistrates Court recently found that an undischarged bankrupt was unable to seek compensation or a financial penalty against a former employer for unlawful dismissal, but was able to seek reinstatement instead.

Introduction

In the latest episode in one of Australia's most complex and lengthy commercial disputes, the Western Australia Court of Appeal recently dismissed an appeal by a syndicate of banks (the Banks) from a decision in favour of the liquidators of the Bell Group (the Group): Westpac Banking Corporation v The Bell Group Limited (in liquidation) [No 3] [2012] WASCA 157.

As noted in our recent insolvency law update, the Western Australian Court of Appeal has recently delivered its judgment (comprising over 1,000 pages) on one of Australia's longest running pieces of litigation: Westpac Banking Corporation v The Bell Group (in liq) [No 3].

In Saraceni v Mentha [No.2] [2012] WASC 336 a director sought to challenge the appointment of receivers to Westgem Investments Pty Ltd ("Westgem") under a fixed and floating charge ("the Charge").  In 2008 Westgem entered into a Facility Agreement with financiers and executed the Charge, which charged the "secured property".

The plaintiff contended that: