On 29 August 2012, the Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court) delivered its decision in SingTel Optus Pty Limited v Weston (Costs) [2012] NSWSC 1002. The decision confirms that a liquidator who is removed from their position will be entitled to an indemnity for costs incurred in defending the removal proceedings, unless they act improperly in those proceedings.
Background
A particular focus of the inquiry will be the consequences of such insolvencies for sub-contractors.
In the wake of a recent spate of contractors becoming insolvent, the NSW Government has announced an inquiry into insolvency in the construction industry and is seeking submissions from interested parties. Submissions to the inquiry are due by 14 September 2012.
The proposed scaling back of directors' liability provisions is good news for insolvency practitioners.
In good news for insolvency practitioners, the NSW Government formally adopted the Council of Australian Governments guidelines on "Personal Liability for Corporate Fault" as NSW policy on 31 July 2012 .
What are the "Personal Liability for Corporate Fault" guidelines?
Why the Inquiry?
The NSW Government has announced an independent Inquiry into Construction Industry Insolvency in NSW. Announced by NSW Minister for Finance & Services the Hon. Greg Pearce, the Inquiry will examine the extent and causes of insolvency in the NSW construction industry and what reforms are needed to minimise the adverse effects of insolvency on sub-contractors.
On 7 December 2011, the Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court) delivered its decision in In the matter of Nugisi Pty Ltd [2011] NSWSC 1512, clarifying the circumstances in which courts will allow the appointment of a provisional liquidator.
Facts
On 21 December 2011, the New South Wales Court of Appeal (Court) delivered its decision in Moss v Eaglestone (2011) 257 FLR 96. This decision clarifies the circumstances in which legal causes of action will be considered property divisible amongst a bankrupt’s creditors.
Background
In 2007, Moss supplied information regarding Schapelle Corby to Nationwide News Pty Ltd (News). News published this information in a newspaper article, which also referred to Moss’s criminal background.
On 5 October 2011 Justice Barrett of the Supreme Court of NSW handed down a decision in Centro Retail Limited and Centro MCS Manager Limited in its capacity as Responsible Entity of the Centro Retail Trust [2011] NSWSC 1175 (“Centro”) where he found that the responsible entity of Centro Retail Trust would be justified in modifying the constitution of the trust without unitholder approval to a insert a provision permitting the issue of units at a price different to that provided for by the pre-existing provisions.
Where a creditor of an insolvent company set conditions for its merger and advised its board of directors on its post-merger operations and finances, held that this was not sufficient to render it a shadow director of the company:
- Buzzle Operations Pty Ltd (in liq) v Apply Computer Australia Pty Ltd [2011] NSWCA 109 (Australia, New South Wales Court of Appeal, 9 May 2011)
Your insurer goes bust – can you as an insured claim the reinsurance proceeds? An important decision in the NSW Supreme Court gives useful guidance on when a court will allow departures from the statutory scheme controlling the application of reinsurance proceeds (Amaca Pty Ltd v McGrath & Anor as liquidators of HIH Underwriting and Insurance (Australia) Pty Ltd [2011] NSWSC 90).
The insurer goes broke, and there are all these claimants at the door…
In brief
A recent decision by the New South Wales Court of Appeal in Buzzle Operations Pty Ltd (in liq) –v- Apple Computer Australia Pty Ltd [2011] NSWCA 109 provides useful guidance on the key aspects of shadow directorships and to what extent advices can be given by an interested party such as a financial accountant or a lender to a debtor without that interested party falling within the definition of "shadow director".
Background