This week’s TGIF considers a decision of the Victorian Supreme Court which examined the merits of appointing special purpose liquidators in circumstances where a creditor was only willing to fund investigations if the appointment was made.

What happened?

In May and June 2016, two registered education and training organisations (together, the RTOs) were placed into liquidation.

This week’s TGIF considers Re Akron Roads Pty Ltd (in liq) (No 3) in which the Court held that the liquidators had standing to seek a declaration against an insurer arising from the assignment of rights under a policy.

WHAT HAPPENED?

The previous High Court decision

In brief

On 1 June 2016, the Victorian Court of Appeal determined that a group member in a class action is not precluded by Anshun estoppel from raising separate defences in claims against them.

Short history of the Timbercorp proceedings

The Timbercorp group of companies operated managed investment schemes. The group went into liquidation in June 2009, at which time there were more than 14,500 outstanding loans to over 7,500 borrowers, totalling more than $450m.

In The Australian Sawmilling Company Pty Ltd (in liq) v Environment Protection Authority [2021] VSCA 294 (Australian Sawmilling), the Victorian Supreme Court of Appeal (VSCA) dismissed an appeal by the liquidators of The Australian Sawmilling Company Pty Ltd (TASCO) against a decision of Garde J of the Victorian Supreme Court (VSC) setting aside the liquidators’ disclaimer of land subject to significant environmental ‘clean up’ costs (Primary Judgment).

Before 1993, the question of whether a creditor of a corporation being wound up had received an unfair preference from that corporation was determined under section 122 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth). In 1993, a new Part 5.7B was inserted into the Corporations Act to deal with voidable transactions such as unfair preferences. Since then two lines of divergent judicial authority have developed: