The "running account" defence to an unfair preference claim is a fragile flower. In a recent decision, the Queensland Court of Appeal has reminded solvent counterparties that suspension of a customer's trading account will probably break the "running account", exposing a solvent counterparty to greater unfair preference risk.
Need to know
Mango Boulevard Pty Ltd & Anor v Whitton & Ors [2015] FCA 1169
A bankruptcy trustee’s notice objecting to discharge on one of the special grounds specified in the Bankruptcy Act 1966 can be valid even if based on additional unstated reasons, so long as those reasons are directed to the achievement of a purpose of the law of bankruptcy.
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.
The unanimous decision by the Full Court of the Federal Court in Templeton v Australian and Securities Investments Commission [2015] FCAFC 137 confirms that the concept of proportionality is a well-recognised factor in considering the question of reasonable remuneration for an insolvency practitioner, and that, in assessing a remuneration claim, the Court can take into account the quality and complexity of the work as well as the value and nature of any property dealt with and the time reasonably spent.
Baker & McKenzie Alert Client Alert 28 SEPTEMBER 2015 Download Forward Contact Us Visit Our Website Providing the Commissioner of Taxation with access to records - even liquidators cannot escape Need to know The Federal Court has recently determined that when the Commissioner of Taxation is a creditor of a company in liquidation, he or she is not required to obtain a court order under section 486 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act), unlike all other creditors, before requiring the Liquidator to make available the company's records for inspection.
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).