Background

In Re CMI Industrial Pty Ltd (in liq); Byrne & Ors v CMI Limited [2015] QSC 96, liquidators sought directions as to whether they were required to pay trading profits made by the receivers to priority creditors under s433 of the Corporations Act.

Update: Re CMI Industrial Pty Ltd (In Liq); Byrnes & Ors v CMI Limited [2015] QSC 96

Receivers do not have to distribute profits from the sale of inventory acquired by them during their appointment to priority creditors.

The question of whether priority creditors have a statutory entitlement to receivers’ inventory trading profit has largely been left unanswered until the decision handed down by Justice Mullins on 27 April 2015. 

In brief: The Supreme Court of Queensland recently considered whether liquidated damages in a standard form construction contract were a penalty. In a decision that traversed long-held doctrines on penalties and recent developments in Andrews and Paciocco, the court ruled that the obligation to pay liquidated damages in this case was not penal.

BACKGROUND

Stephanie Roebuck As Executor Of The Deceased Estate Of Suzanne Florence Bulwinkel (Roebuck) served Bulwinkel Enterprises Pty Ltd (Bulwinkel) with a statutory demand for the payment of $990,377.63 monies owing in connection with an unpaid trust distribution and loan between the parties. 

In brief: A Supreme Court of Queensland judgment handed down today has provided greater certainty for secured creditors of companies that earn profits following the appointment of a receiver. The judgment dispels suggestions that the law was uncertain and means that secured creditors can continue to fund receivers confident that any trading profits will be distributed to them as secured creditors and not to priority creditors.

Summary

Insolvency practitioners pursuing unfair preference claims should give consideration to a recent Queensland District Court judgment which has endorsed the application of section 553C of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act) - which enables an insolvent company and a creditor to set-off their mutual debts against each other - to unfair preference claims.

The Supreme Court of Queensland decision of First Strategic Corporation Limited (In Liq) and Anor v Chan and Ors [2014] QSC 60 gives insolvency practitioners guidance as to what consideration can be taken into account when assessing the solvency of a company by the means and preparedness of someone to support the company.

Background

A recent case involving frozen funds held by American Express in the US has highlighted the difficulty of enforcing freezing orders internationally. In this particular instance, Warren Jiear, Head of Piper Alderman’s Insolvency team, was able to use this to assist liquidator, Blair Pleash of Hall Chadwick, to recover substantial funds owing to an insolvent company.

In the recent decision of First Strategic Development Corporation Limited (in liq) and Anor v Chan and Ors [2014] QSC 60, the Supreme Court of Queensland considered the solvency of a company with no assets or formalised line of credit, but with a director who claimed to be willing to fund the $2.5 million that the company had committed to spending.

FACTS

The Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act) and the Corporations Regulations 2001 (Regulations) contain various rules regulating the lodgment of Proofs of Debt by creditors. Often Proofs of Debt are lodged by creditors to entitle them to vote at a second meeting of creditors convened by an Administrator under section 439A of the Act.