In the matter of One.Tel Limited (in liquidation) [2014] NSWSC 1892

The decision In the matter of CGH Engineering Pty Ltd [2014] NSWSC 1132 handed down by Justice Brereton early in 2014 required the Court to answer an interesting and novel question - is the statutory derivative action available during a voluntary administration?

The statutory derivative action

In October, we issued an Insolvency Newsflash with respect to the decision in Re: Joe & Joe Developments Pty Ltd (subject to a Deed of Company Arrangement) [2014] NSWSC 1444. On 1 December 2014, a further judgement was handed down by the Supreme Court of New South Wales (Re: Joe & Joe Developments Pty Ltd (subject to a Deed of Company Arrangement) [2014] NSWSC 1703), which considered additional matters and included orders for costs.

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.

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. 

Key Points:

Courts will limit an administrator's liability where proposed funding is to be used directly to advance an agenda consistent with the objects of Part 5.3A of the Corporations Act.

A recent decision of the NSW Supreme Court highlights the flexibility of Part 5.3A of the Corporations Act and the ability of administrators to seek orders protecting their interests and facilitating restructures, and was the first stage of what promises to be a novel and challenging administration (In the matter of Nexus Energy Ltd [2014] NSWSC 1041).

On 11 September 2014, the Supreme Court of NSW handed down its decision in Allco Funds Management Limited (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (In Liquidation) v Trust Company (RE Services) Limited (in its capacity as responsible entity and trustee of the Australian Wholesale Property Fund) [2014] NSWSC 1251.

The decision has highlighted the risks associated with the involvement of directors in transactions where they are in a position of conflict.

THE FACTS

On 11 September 2014, the Supreme Court of New South Wales delivered judgment in Allco Funds Management Limited (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (In Liquidation) v Trust Company (RE Services) Limited (in its capacity as responsible entity and trustee of the Australian Wholesale Property Fund) [2014] NSWSC 1251.

The decision reminds directors of the risks associated with their involvement in transactions where they are in a position of conflict.

BACKGROUND

In the recent decision, In the matter of Mirabela Nickel Ltd (subject to deed of company arrangement) [2014] NSWSC 836, the NSW Supreme Court has granted leave to the deed administrators under section 444GA of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act) to transfer 98.2% of the existing shares of Mirabela Nickel Ltd (Mirabela) to unsecured creditors without the consent of its shareholders.

FACTS

In Kisimul Holdings Pty Ltd v Clear Position Pty Ltd, a decision seemingly inconsistent with established law, the Supreme Court of NSW earlier this year held that an omission in the affidavit supporting a statutory demand did not amount to “some other reason why the demand should be set aside”. The NSW Court of Appeal has now reversed the decision, restoring a degree of certainty in this much-litigated area of law.

The Law