The Federal Court of Australia recently considered the Court’s discretionary power to provide assistance to a foreign trustee (Hong Kong) in bankruptcy, by way of appointing a receiver over divisible property located in Australia in the case of Lees v O’Dea (No 2) [2014] FCA 1082. It also continued the ongoing focus on practitioner’s remuneration, an issue which has attracted some attention in various state courts.
Background
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.
Re: Joe & Joe Developments Pty Ltd (subject to a Deed of Company Arrangement) [2014] NSWSC 1444
Recently, Courts have increased focus on the appropriateness of expenditure (including legal fees) incurred by insolvency practitioners and the steps they should undertake to determine if the costs and expenses are reasonable. Warren Jiear, Partner and Tim Logan, Associate look at a case handed down on 22 October 2014 that considered these issues and the implications for practitioners.
In Akers (as a joint foreign representative of Saad Investments Company Ltd) (in official liquidation) (a company registered in the Cayman Islands) v DCT [2014]FCAFC 57 the Federal Court of Australia recently upheld an earlier landmarkdecision concerning the proper construction and interpretation of the Model Lawon Cross Border Insolvency on the United Nations Commission on InternationalTrade Law, made part of Aust
Senior Associate, Sarah Drinkwater, Associate, Tim Logan and Paralegal, Erin Donald discuss the recent case of AAA Financial Intelligence Ltd (in liquidation) ACN 093 616 445 [2014] NSWSC 1004.
The facts
The applicants were the Liquidators of AAA Financial Intelligence Ltd (in liquidation) (the Company).
The approach of the courts to public examinations conducted by liquidators has in recent times arguably tended towards granting increasing liberty to liquidators in the scope of their examinations.
In Stewart v Atco Controls Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) [2014] HCA 15, the High Court of Australia recently delivered a decision which has confirmed the priority of a Liquidator’s lien over the interests of a secured creditor.
The facts
In Australian Building Systems Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation [2014] FCA 116, the Federal Court held that liquidators do not have an obligation to retain an amount for the payment of tax of a portion of the proceeds from the sale of property owned by the company before liquidation when no tax assessment has been issued. However, Justice Logan made clear that a prudent liquidator would be entitiled to retain the gain until an advice or assessment from the Commissioner, was issued.
Background
The recent case of Young, Jr, in the matter of Buccaneer Energy Limited v Buccaneer Energy Limited [2014] FCA 711 considered the concept of “the centre of main interests”, described in the Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (United Nations General Assembly Resolution A/RES/52/158 (1997)). Senior Associate, Sarah Drinkwater and Associate, Tim Logan discuss.
Application
Despite the power to provide directions to Administrators and Liquidators specifically provided in the Corporations Act, one consistent theme arises in the cases – the Courts will not second-guess purely commercial decisions of practitioners.