A recent case[1] is a reminder to creditors in a voluntary winding up that the Court has the power to appoint an additional or special purpose liquidator (SPL) to carry out a set function in the orderly liquidation of a company where it is 'just and beneficial' to do so.

What is a special purpose liquidator?

Introduction

The Full Court of the Federal Court has given some important guidance on the calculation of remuneration for court appointed receivers.  In its decision in Templeton v Australian Securities and Investment Commission the Court has highlighted the importance of proportionality in determining reasonable remuneration.

General Position

Hudson v Signalla [2015] FCAFC 140 confirms that leave of the court is not required under s58(3) Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) to sue a former bankrupt in respect of what was a provable debt in the bankruptcy, after an annulment of the bankruptcy by way of a composition under ss73 and 74 of the Bankrupcty Act.

BACKGROUND

A bankrupt had his bankruptcy annulled by way of presentation of a composition that was accepted by participating creditors (Composition). 

The Corporations Act (the Act) permits a liquidator to claw back preferential payments made to an unsecured creditor within the six (6) month period prior to the winding up: section 588FA of the Act.

Update on McCabes' article " 'Are we there yet' - When are proceedings over for the purposes of enforcement"

The High Court of Australia has refused an application for special leave to appeal the decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia in Sarks v Cassegrain [2015] FCAFC 38, confirming that a judgment issued by the Court on the basis of filing of a certificate of costs assessment is a "final judgment" for the purposes of s 40(1)(g) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) and can therefore ground a bankruptcy notice.

Federal Court confirms the ATO cannot issue garnishee notices to a company being wound up to collect post-liquidation tax liabilities.

This week’s TGIF considers the case of In the matter of Idoport Pty Limited (in liquidation) [2015] NSWSC 1412 in which the Court reinforced that a reluctance to give directions to a liquidator in respect of commercial matters is qualified in respect of matters which are capable of giving rise to a legal controversy.

What happened?

The High Court of Australia has confirmed that Australian Supreme Courts have the power to make orders freezing the Australian assets of a foreign company in anticipation of a possible judgment in a foreign court being obtained against that foreign company.

Background

Freezing orders and the Foreign Judgments Act

Freezing orders (also known as Mareva orders or Mareva injunctions) are oft-used tools available to a plaintiff to preserve the assets of a defendant, where there is a danger of the defendant absconding or of the assets being removed from the jurisdiction or otherwise diminished. Such dangers put in peril the ability of a plaintiff to recover any favourable judgment against that defendant.

Since the Global Financial Crisis it has been increasingly common for parties involved in property settlement disputes to be fighting over property with a net negative value or, in extreme cases, for one party to be declared bankrupt.

Despite common perception, a spouse being declared bankrupt in the middle of court proceedings for property settlement does not automatically end the proceedings or mean that the bankrupt’s assets are put out of reach of the other spouse in a property settlement.