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.

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).

Connections Total Fitness for the Family Pty Limited (Connections) operated a gym on premises owned by Selkirk Pastoral Co Pty Limited (Selkirk). The gym business ultimately failed and ceased trading when administrators were appointed on 4 October 2013. Connections’ assets were limited to some cash at bank and a $1.1m claim against Selkirk.

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.