A Supreme Court of New South Wales decision in February 2014 is a timely reminder to creditors to ensure that agreements clearly articulate arrangements where funds are to be held on trust for a specific purpose.  The Court revisited the question of the entitlement to retention funds and competing creditor claims in the matter of National Buildplan Group Pty Ltd (subject to deed of company arrangement)(Buildplan)

In DSG Holdings Australia Pty Ltd v Helenic Pty Ltd [2014] NSWCA 96, the Court of Appeal considered the meaning of the “interests of the creditors as a whole” under section 600A of the Corporations Actand the circumstances in which the Court will intervene to set aside or impose conditions on resolutions passed at creditors meetings.

BACKGROUND

In the decision of In the matter of AWA Limited (Administrators Appointed) (Receivers and Managers Appointed) ACN 111 674 661 [2014] NSWSC 249, the New South Wales Supreme Court considered the scope of s 477D of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and whether it was appropriate to make a direction regarding the administrators’ entry into a loan agreement to pay out a secured creditor.

Background

In the recent matter of JP Morgan Chase Bank, National Association v Fletcher; Grant Samuel Corporate Finance Pty Ltd v Fletcher [2014] NSWCA 31, the NSW Court of Appeal handed down a decision with important consequences for liquidators and the time they have to commence proceedings for voidable transactions. The decision also illustrates the frequently inconsistent operation of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and Court procedure rules. Senior Associate, Elisabeth Pickthall and Associate, Stefano Calabretta discuss the decision.

In the decision of JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association v Fletcher; Grant Samuel Corporate Finance Pty Limited v Fletcher [2014] NSWCA 31, the Court of Appeal of New South Wales confirmed that liquidators may apply under rule 36.16(2)(b) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) (UCPR) to further extend the time within which they may bring voidable transactions proceedings.  We considered the first instance judgment in a

In brief - Court sets aside DOCA in Helenic v Retail Adventures

The NSW Supreme Court has recently set aside a deed of company arrangement (DOCA) on the basis that it was prejudicial to creditors who voted against it. The court appointed liquidators to the company.

Declaration of interest: CBP Lawyers acted for the plaintiffs in the case discussed in this article and also represent a large number of unsecured creditors of Retail Adventures Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed).

When a company is placed into liquidation, the company’s available funds are paid to general unsecured creditors on a pro rata basis by way of a dividend payment.  However, certain classes of creditors are given priority in the payment of dividends, including employees who are owed wages and other employment entitlements by the company.

What is the position if a person advances money to a company, after it has been placed into external administration, to allow the company to pay wages or other entitlements to employees?

Summary 

In this eBulletin we discuss a recent Supreme Court of NSW decision: In the matter ofGreat Wall Resources Pty Limited (In Liq) [2013] NSWSC 354. This decision provides useful insight into the scope of unreasonable director-related transactions.

The NSW Court of Appeal recently confirmed that the bankruptcy of a personal trustee or appointer of a family trust does not affect the protection afforded to the family trust assets by the trust structure. 

Key Points:

For a company to be entitled to subrogation under section 560, it must ensure that it meets the strict requirements of section 560 and does not pay entitlements directly to the relevant company's employees.