This week’s TGIF considers a decision of the Victorian Supreme Court which examined the merits of appointing special purpose liquidators in circumstances where a creditor was only willing to fund investigations if the appointment was made.
What happened?
In May and June 2016, two registered education and training organisations (together, the RTOs) were placed into liquidation.
The New South Wales Supreme Court of Appeal's decision in Sanderson as Liquidator of Sakr Nominees [1] has given cause for optimism amongst insolvency practitioners. The decision confirms that the correct approach was taken by the Court inIdylic Solutions [2], bucking a trend in recent years of limiting or reducing practitioner remuneration by reference to a proportion of the funds recovered.
A spate of recent decisions approving liquidators’ remuneration on an ad valorembasis had caused some trepidation amongst insolvency practitioners facing the prospect of court fee approval.
Court of Appeal sets the record straight
The key point
On March 9, 2017, a full bench of the New South Wales Court of Appeal handed down a significant decision affecting approach to judicial review and approval of liquidator remuneration. Significantly, existing tension between decisions of different judges at first instance, and between NSW and Federal courts, has been resolved.
This week’s TGIF considers the application of the principle in Re Universal Distributing and whether liquidators may claim an equitable lien to recover their costs and expenses, even if no assets are realised and no fund exists.
Background
In the recent Court of Appeal decision of Primary Securities Ltd v Willmott Forests Limited, liquidators had been appointed to an insolvent company which was the responsible entity of a managed investment forestry scheme.
Everything or Nothing! That is what the Queensland Court of Appeal has told us recently when it comes to assessing what a creditor is really owed for the purposes of standing to wind up a company
Background
A dispute arose between two parties involved in the management of Treadtel International Pty Ltd (Treadtel) whereby a Mr Cocco asserted that one of the two issued shares in Treadtel was held on trust for his benefit by the sole director’s wife, Mrs Crosher, because of an alleged share sale agreement.
In Suk v Hanjin Shipping Co Ltd [2016] FCA 1404, the Federal Court (a) provided guidance on how courts are to determine what stay arises upon recognition of foreign main proceedings under the Cross-Border Insolvency Act 2008; and (2) demonstrated that such recognition can cause maritime lien actions to be stayed.
Winding up a company when you are the trustee in bankruptcy of the sole director and shareholder can be more complicated than you think.
Today, certain provisions of the Insolvency Law Reform Act 2016 will take effect. Amongst these is s100-5 of the new Insolvency Practice Schedule (Corporations), which will be included as a schedule to the Corporations Act 2001. The same provision (with identical numbering) is contained in the Insolvency Practice Schedule (Bankruptcy), which is a schedule to the Bankruptcy Act 1966.
A recent decision of the New South Wales Court of Appeal serves as a timely reminder of the costly consequences of failing to register a PPSR security interest in leased goods.
Power Rental Op Co Australia, LLC v Forge Group Power Pty Ltd (in liq) (receivers and managers appointed) [2017] NSWCA 8
In March 2013 General Electric International Inc (GE), the appellant’s predecessor in title, agreed to lease turbines to Forge Group Power Pty Ltd (Forge Group).