The recent Supreme Court of New South Wales decision of In the matter of Octaviar Administration Pty Limited (in liquidation) [2013] NSWSC 786 confirms that liquidators must notify all interested parties prior to seeking an extension for the period in which to bring preference actions.  For the first time, the Court has confirmed that the directors of the insolvent company are “interested persons” in cases where a liquidator intends to pursue the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) over potential preferential payments based solely on the potential for the ATO to

In an important decision for the large number of discretionary trusts in Australia, the Supreme Court of New South Wales has considered whether a family trust structure is a sufficiently robust firewall to protect the family trust assets against claims by a trustee in bankruptcy appointed to the personal Trustee or Appointor of a family trust.

The decision is Lewis v Condon; Condon v Lewis [2013] NSWCA 204 which was handed down on 4 July 2013 by the Court of Appeal.

The importance of notifications to potential defendants and directors of the insolvent company

The decision in Re Octaviar Administration Pty Ltd (in liq) [2013] NSWSC 786 highlights two key issues for insolvency practitioners:

The Companies Act 2006 (Strategic Report and Directors' Report) Regulations 2013 (Regulations) to amend the structure of UK annual reports have been published and laid before Parliament.

The recent Australian Federal Court case of Neeat Holdings (in liq) [2013] FCA 61 considered the issue of whether the liquidator of a trustee company should be permitted to sell trust assets notwithstanding the appointment of a new trustee in substitution for the insolvent trustee company.

The Federal Court found that where a trust deed provides for the cessation of a corporate trustee upon the appointment of an administrator or upon a resolution for its liquidation (and there is no replacement trustee appointed), the corporate trustee retains its right of indemnity and continues as bare trustee but does not have the power to sell the trust assets.  However, the Court was persuaded to grant relief to the liquidators of the trustee (who had sold trust assets) on the basis they had not been advised by their solicitors of the disqualification clause and they com

In the recent case MSI (Holdings) Pty Ltd v Mainstreet International Group Ltd, the Queensland Supreme Court confirmed that receivers of a company in liquidation can commence legal proceedings in the name of the company without leave of the court, when those proceedings relate to the recovery of secured property.

The recent decision of Modcol Pty Ltd v National Buildplan Group Pty Ltd ^[1] addressed whether leave should be granted to a subcontractor to allow it to commence proceedings against a contractor in administration in respect of the subcontractor's rights under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW) (the SOP Act).

Six month extensions to convening periods should not be seen as a fait accompli, particularly if the administrator's application is opposed.

There is a commonly held belief that courts will readily grant an administrator's application for an extension to the convening period. This might have been true once, but it is fast turning into an urban myth, judging by two recent decisions in the Federal Court.

In the recent decision of ASIC v ActiveSuper Pty Ltd (No 2) [2013] FCA 234 (ActiveSuper), the Federal Court considered an application by ASIC brought pursuant to s 472(2) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act) to appoint provisional liquidators to a company MOGS Pty Ltd (MOGS).