Will a Court order security for costs against a liquidator with litigation funding? Not always, as a recent decision of the NSW Supreme Court made clear.

Background

The defendant was the director of a company (Commercial Indemnity Pty Ltd or ‘Commercial Indemnity’) which provided agency services for commercial and industrial rental and petroleum bonds.

It’s tempting for a company director to not respond to a liquidator’s request to produce financial records if they contain incriminating material, but is it wise?  

In the recent case of In the matter of Gondon Five Pty Limited and Cui Family Asset Management Pty Limited [2019] NSWSC 469, the New South Wales Supreme Court (Brereton J) considered the purpose and scope of an appointment as receiver to a company, and came down particularly hard on an insolvency practitioner for performing work and incurring expenses which were determined to be outside, or not incidental to, the scope of his appointment.

Background

In business it is not uncommon for a director of a company to be owed money by that company.

If the commercial relationship breaks down, the director may think it is an option to serve a creditor’s statutory demand on the debtor company.

However, recent court decisions demonstrate that issuing a creditor’s statutory demand is not a sure fire method of obtaining payment where the director is owed the debt personally or is a director of both the creditor and debtor companies.

Cases where statutory demands have been successfully challenged

Receiverships usually arise from a secured creditor exercising their rights under a loan contract or mortgage following a default. But even where no default occurs, the Supreme Court of New South Wales has jurisdiction to appoint a receiver to preserve the property of an association pending the resolution of a dispute about the management of the association’s property.

Jurisdiction

In a recent case, Emmett AJA of the Supreme Court of New South Wales refused to make an order to terminate the winding up of an incorporated association. In this article, we re-examine the principles with which the Court will have regard when determining whether to exercise its discretion to terminate the winding up of a company or incorporated association.

Background

Significant insolvency legislative reforms were introduced in 2017. One year on, we assess what changes, if any, these reforms have had on the insolvency market in Australia.

The most significant insolvency law reforms in 20 years were introduced in 2017 to improve efficiency, communication, engagement and competition in external administration processes. The reforms were implemented in two tranches pursuant to the Insolvency Law Reform Act 2016 (Cth) (ILRA).

Introduction

In Botsman v Bolitho [2018] VSCA 278, the Court of Appeal unanimously allowed an appeal from the decision of Croft J to approve the settlement of two related proceedings arising from the failed merger of Banksia Securities Limited (Banksia) and Statewide Secured Investments Limited (Statewide).

The serious consequences that follow a failure to comply with the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) (PPSA) were highlighted in the recent decision of Ward CJ in Eq of the Supreme Court of New South Wales in Psyche Holdings Pty Limited [2018] NSWSC 1254 (Psyche Case).

The Psyche Case is another reminder of:

On 28 September 2018, the NSW Supreme Court in Greenwood Futures v DSD Builders (No. 2) [2018] NSWSC extended a stay of a judgment in favour of a contractor based upon a Security of Payment Act NSW (SOPA) adjudication on the basis that the contractor was at risk of insolvency. This is consistent with previous decisions of the court in similar circumstances.