The sole role of ICS, the company at issue in the recent decision of the New South Wales Supreme Court in In the matter of Independent Contractor Services (Aust) Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (No 2) [2016] NSWSC 106, was to be the trustee of the similarly named ICS Trust.  Previous litigation had confirmed that the trust was not a sham and that all ICS's assets were trust assets.  In the present decision, the judge held that all expenses incurred by ICS were expenses incurred as trustee, and therefore ICS (and the liquidator) had a right to be indemnified for those e

BACKGROUND

The statutory order of priority as it relates to a superannuation guarantee charge liability was considered in the New South Wales Supreme Court proceeding In the matter of Independent Contractor Services (Aust) Pty Limited ACN 119 186 971 (in liquidation) (No 2)[2016] NSWSC 106.

Section 440D imposes a stay on “proceedings in a court” against a company whilst it is in administration under Part 5.3A of the Corporations Act. It is well established that the term “proceedings in a court” does not include an arbitration proceeding: see Larkden Pty Limited v Lloyd Energy Systems Pty Limited [2011] NSWSC 1305 at [42] (Hammerschlag J). Notwithstanding this, can the Court use its general power to make orders under s447A to extend the reach of s440D in order to impose a stay on an arbitration against a company in administration?

Key Points:

Companies that have leasing as a small and irregular part of their overall business still must comply with the PPSA if their interests in leased goods are to be protected.

By its much anticipated yet hardly surprising judgment in Forge Group Power Pty Limited (in liquidation)(receivers and managers appointed) v General Electric International Inc  [2016] NSWSC 52, the Supreme Court of New South Wales has again shone a bright light on the importance of perfection of security interests under the PPSA, and the dramatic consequences that follow for failing to do so by reason of the PPSA vesting rules.  Indeed, the failure to register in this case has had multi-million dollar consequences.

Two critical components affecting liquidators have come out of Tuesday’s decision by Brereton J in the NSW Supreme Court.

In a previous article, we addressed some of the pitfalls of drafting subpoenas and provided some tips and tricks for the drafting of subpoenas (see “The Pitfalls of Subpoenas”). Since that article, the NSW Court of Appeal has addressed the issue again with a timely warning to insurers that improperly drafted subpoenas will be set aside, in whole or in part.

This week’s TGIF considers the recent NSW Supreme Court decision of Westpac Bank v Raflick Sayah [2015] NSWC 1167, provides comfort to banks and their receivers in that it validated the actions of a Receiver who had obtained expert advice on a sale process and had undertaken a thorough process.

THE FACTS

This week’s TGIF considers the case of In the matter of Idoport Pty Limited (in liquidation) [2015] NSWSC 1412 in which the Court reinforced that a reluctance to give directions to a liquidator in respect of commercial matters is qualified in respect of matters which are capable of giving rise to a legal controversy.

What happened?

Key Points:

A section 439A report must contain all material information which is known or reasonably ascertainable by administrators.