With the enactment of the ipso factoreform in September this year (which commences operation on 1 July 2018), it is the genuine hope of many insolvency practitioners and others in the market that voluntary administration will become a less value-destructive and, therefore, a more useful tool for company restructures.

This week’s TGIF considers the decision in the matter of Bias Boating Pty Ltd [2017] NSWSC 1524 which deals with leave to join already named defendants to a “mothership” proceeding after expiration of the limitation period

Background

The first plaintiff was appointed administrator of the second plaintiff (the relevant company) on 25 August 2014 and became its liquidator on 29 September 2014.

Since the landmark decision in Re Solfire Pty Ltd (In Liq) (No. 2) [1999] 2 Qd R 182, the Queensland Supreme Court has often marched to its own tune when reviewing applications for insolvency practitioner remuneration and disbursements. In two related decisions arising from the insolvency of LM Investment Management and managed investment schemes of which it is responsible entity, the Court has now turned its attention to the controversies in this area over proportionality and access to trust assets with which its counterparts in New South Wales have grappled over the last 18 months.

This week’s TGIF considers the decision of Simpson & Anor v Tropical Hire Pty Ltd (in liq) [2017] QCA 274 in which the Queensland Court of Appeal considered whether a disposition of property by a company after the commencement of its winding up was void

BACKGROUND

Mr Simpson was the sole director and shareholder of Tropical Hire Pty Ltd (company). It had operated a successful business until that business was sold in 2009. After the sale, the company did not trade.

In certain circumstances, liquidators may be at risk of personal exposure to costs orders in litigation. 

The court’s approach to the making of costs orders against liquidators depends on (amongst other things) whether the liquidator is a named party to the proceedings, whether the liquidator is commencing or defending proceedings, and whether the liquidator has acted ‘improperly’ or unreasonably in the commencement, maintenance or defence of the action.

Proceedings commenced by the liquidator / company in liquidation

If you've ever traded with a company that subsequently enters liquidation, you'll know that it can be very frustrating and disruptive to your business. If the company owes you money and you're an unsecured creditor, you'll join the (often long) line of other unsecured creditors and may see little or no money at the end of the process.

Just because a liquidator asserts you have received an unfair preference, does not necessarily mean you have or that there are no potential defences available to you.

On 1 September 2017, the remaining parts of the new Insolvency Practice Schedule (IPS) introduced by the Insolvency Law Reform Act 2016 (Cth) as Schedule 2 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act) commenced operation, including the provisions relating to "funds handling" contained in Division 65 of the IPS. These provisions apply to all "external administrations"1. including those that commenced prior to 1 September 20172.

This week’s TGIF considers Ziziphus Pty Ltd v Pluton Resources Ltd (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (in liq) [2017] WASCA 193, where the Court considered the impartiality and independence of liquidators.

BACKGROUND

Factoring agreements are very popular with subcontractors and suppliers in the construction industry, assisting cash-flow by providing a line of credit against accounts receivable. However, like any financial product, they can present complexities, pitfalls and at times surprises when pursuing debt recovery and enforcement action. 

Where a subcontractor is factoring its debts: