Liquidators are subject to rights and duties under common law and the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (CA).

The Federal Court has recently handed down a decision that clarifies the power of receivers to administer trust property under a debenture. In Benton, in the matter of Mackay Rural Pty Ltd (Receivers and Managers Appointed) [2014] FCA 1285, the Federal Court confirmed that section 420 of the Corporations Act 2001 (“the Act”) confers upon receivers a power to dispose of trust property, provided that this is necessary for the purpose for which they have been appointed.

FACTS

It is well-known that liquidators must be independent. If there is a reasonable apprehension that Liquidators lack independence, a Court may remove and replace them pursuant to the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (CA).

This case highlights that the fiduciary duty to avoid conflicts of interest in particular will be strictly adhered to, with questions of fairness or unfairness of the relevant transaction being irrelevant.  Directors are reminded of the need to take great care to manage potential risks when involved in transactions in which they are acting as director of more than one company.  In particular, directors should check the rules in the companies’ constitutions around conflict of interest and if there is any concern, disclose their interest and seek approval of the companie

The Supreme Court of Western Australia recently handed down its decision in Soil and Contracting Pty Ltd v Boban Pty Ltd [2014] WASC 402 which confirmed that, notwithstanding the operation of s 459R of the Corporations Act, the slip rule is available to extend the time limit within which a winding up application may be determined.

SECTION 459R

Turner v Gorkowski [2014] VSCA 248

Whether application seeking a declaration for or against the title of the trustee to a trustee in bankruptcy under s 58(1)(a) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) is a ‘special federal matter’ within the meaning of s 6(1) of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross Vesting Act) 1987 (Cth).

On appeal, the Victorian Supreme Court of Appeal transferred a proceeding initiated in the Supreme Court to the Federal Court.

Since BP Australia Pty Ltd v Brown, there has been a practice of Courts across Australia granting "shelf orders", whereby time for voidable transaction recovery actions by a Liquidator under section 588FF is extended "at large".  The Court's power to grant these "shelf orders", however, is to be scrutinised by the High Court in December 2014, in the course of the Octaviar group liquidation.

In brief: The Full Federal Court has held that a liquidator has no obligation to retain monies on account of tax until a notice of assessment has been issued. While the decision is a win for taxpayers (and creditors of insolvent entities), it remains to be seen how the Commissioner of Taxation will respond. Partner Katrina Parkyn (view CV), Senior Associate Joanne Langford and Associate Jay Prasad report on the decision.

On 25 July 2014 and 17 September 2014 respectively, Justice Brereton of the Supreme Court of NSW delivered two related judgments in Re AAA Financial Intelligence Ltd (in liquidation) andRe AAA Financial Intelligence Ltd (in liquidation) (No 2). The decisions deal with the evergreen topic of Liquidator remuneration and expenses.

Importantly, in fixing the Liquidators' remuneration, Justice Brereton adopted a "value" focussed approach, and discussed the relevance of considering matters beyond simply time spent multiplied by fixed hourly rates. 

A recent decision of the Full Federal Court gives liquidators comfort that they are not required to set money aside to meet the future tax obligations of a company until those obligations have been assessed by the Tax Office. Although liquidators must retain money 'sufficient to pay tax which is or will become due', this obligation only applies to tax liabilities that have been assessed and are presently payable or payable in the future, not to liabilities that might be created by future assessments.