This week’s TGIF considers State of Victoria v Goulburn Administration Services (In Liquidation) and Ors [2016] VSC 654, in which Special Purpose Liquidators were appointed despite a potential conflict arising from their firm having conducted compliance audits of the companies.

Background

There continues to be doubt about the validity of certain Committees of Inspection (COI) established during a liquidation and the approvals given by them. Another decision of Pritchard J in the Supreme Court of Western Australia reinforces the potential risk to liquidators relying on COI approvals in the scenario where no separate meetings of creditors and contributories (i.e. shareholders) are held to approve the establishment of a COI.

The Timbercorp Group invested in agribusiness Managed Investment Schemes on behalf of some 18,500 investors. Many investors in the schemes entered into loan agreements with Timbercorp Finance to finance their investments.[1]

Summary

The unanimous decision of the High Court on 9 November 2016 in Timbercorp Finance Pty Ltd (in liq) v Collins & Timbercorp Finance Pty Ltd (in liq) v Tomes may increase the likelihood of satellite litigation by individual group members following group proceedings.

It follows from the decision that, if group proceedings are heard, group members are only bound by the answers to common questions and the pleadings; they are not, for example, precluded from raising individual claims which were not raised in the group proceeding.

This week’s TGIF considers Re Akron Roads Pty Ltd (in liq) (No 3) in which the Court held that the liquidators had standing to seek a declaration against an insurer arising from the assignment of rights under a policy.

WHAT HAPPENED?

The previous High Court decision

Last year’s Queensland District Court decision in Morton v Rexel Electrical Supplies Pty Ltd [2015] QDC 49 (Rexel) caused quite a stir in insolvency circles. In Rexel, Searles DCJ (a former partner of McCullough Robertson) found that section 553C of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act) could apply to reduce an unfair preference claim brought by a liquidator, by allowing the amount still owing by the company to be set-off against the liquidator’s claim.

This week’s TGIF considers the decision of Kimberley Diamonds Ltd, in the matter of Kimberley Diamond Company Pty Ltd (in liq) [2016] FCA 1016 in which the Court refused to allow the mandatory examination of a liquidator under s 596A.

BACKGROUND

In July 2015, administrators were appointed to a company which operated a diamond mine. A marketing campaign in respect of the mining operations of the company commenced shortly after the administrators’ appointment.

Termite Resources NL (Termite) had operated the Cairn Hill Mine in South Australia from 2010. As a wholly owned subsidiary of Outback Iron Pty Ltd (Outback), Termite operated the mine as an incorporated joint venture between IMX Resources (IMX) and Taifeng Yuanchuang International Development Co Ltd (Taifeng).

On Friday 7 October 2016, McCullough Robertson successfully obtained orders on behalf of a US Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustee, requiring payment to her of money held by the Public Trustee of Queensland (Public Trustee) on behalf of a US bankrupt and her former husband. As far as we know, this is the first time that the Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency (Model Law) has been used in Australia to obtain an order allowing the repatriation of funds to a foreign representative that are not the foreign debtor’s assets.

Section 447A

JOEL COOK Associate, Litigation and Dispute Resolution Group, McCabes

ANDREW LACEY Principal, Litigation and Dispute Resolution Group, McCabes

legal update

ONE SIZE DOES NOT FIT ALL

Varying the scope of the Part 5.3A moratorium on proceedings against companies in voluntary administration.