Debts claimed in statutory demands must be due and payable to the creditor named in the statutory demand.

When disputing statutory demands it is common for debtor companies to argue an offsetting claim, so as to reduce or extinguish the amount claimed in the statutory demand.

For there to be a valid offsetting claim there must be ‘mutuality’, meaning that the legal capacities in which both the offsetting claim and the statutory demand debt are each claimed and owed must align.

On 11 December 2014, Justice Croft of the Victorian Supreme Court delivered judgment approving the settlement of multiple class actions brought by investors in managed investment schemes operated by an entity of the agribusiness Great Southern Group in 2005 and 2006.

Need to know

In a first for the US and Australian markets, the Buccaneer Energy group of companies successfully had bankruptcy plans approved by the US Bankruptcy Court for both US and Australian incorporated debtor companies. 

In October, we issued an Insolvency Newsflash with respect to the decision in Re: Joe & Joe Developments Pty Ltd (subject to a Deed of Company Arrangement) [2014] NSWSC 1444. On 1 December 2014, a further judgement was handed down by the Supreme Court of New South Wales (Re: Joe & Joe Developments Pty Ltd (subject to a Deed of Company Arrangement) [2014] NSWSC 1703), which considered additional matters and included orders for costs.

The decision In the matter of CGH Engineering Pty Ltd [2014] NSWSC 1132 handed down by Justice Brereton early in 2014 required the Court to answer an interesting and novel question - is the statutory derivative action available during a voluntary administration?

The statutory derivative action

A recent decision by Justice Beech of the Western Australian Supreme Court in Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd v James [2015] WASC 10[1] has considered the issue of whether an adjudication determination made under the Construction Contracts Act 2004 (WA) (the Construction Contracts Act) can be enforced by an insolvent company.

SUMMARY

Australia is a member of both the Basel Committee and the G20 and in November, Brisbane was host to the G20 Leaders' Summit.

The agenda focussed on increasing global growth, jobs and economic stability.  Despite the positive G20 intentions, David Cameron was quoted as saying "red warning lights are once again flashing on the dashboard of the global economy".

The Federal Court of Australia recently considered the Court’s discretionary power to provide assistance to a foreign trustee (Hong Kong) in bankruptcy, by way of appointing a receiver over divisible property located in Australia in the case of Lees v O’Dea (No 2) [2014] FCA 1082.  It also continued the ongoing focus on practitioner’s remuneration, an issue which has attracted some attention in various state courts.

Background

An often complicated and at times mysterious issue that arises for practitioners and their lawyers in the insolvency space is how one should approach trusts and trust assets. This year, there have been at least three Supreme Court of New South Wales decisions (all, incidentally, delivered by Justice Brereton) that may provide some much needed judicial guidance on the matter.

Receivers are often faced with the dilemma of goods in their possession which are not readily identifiable as “property of the corporation” pursuant to section 420 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (CA). Selling or disposing of assets that are not property of the company may make receivers liable for the loss or conversion of such goods. Therefore, it is important that receivers identify the property of the company correctly.