When should liquidators apply to court for approval and directions?

Checklists and guides, Industry People, Insolvency practices, Legal opinion, Regulation Comments Off

Sep 212011

Michael J Galvin, barrister and insolvency law expert from Melbourne, has kindly contributed the following article for insolvency practitioners on applications for Court approval and directions, and the powers of administrators and liquidators.

Applications for Court approval and directions

In addition to cases where liquidators and administrators are obliged to seek directions (see later in this paper), there are many circumstances where it may be thought desirable to apply for Court approval.

This will be so where the liquidator or the administrator is uncertain as to the course he or she should adopt in relation to a matter (e.g. Re Mento Developments (2009) 73 ACSR 622). It is particularly so where it is anticipated that a decision is likely to be controversial or where there is likely to be a complaint about a transaction which a liquidator or administrator proposes entering into, or has entered into (e.g. see Handberg (in his capacity as liquidator of S & D International Pty Ltd) (in liq) v MIG Property Services Pty Ltd (2010) 79 ACSR 373; Bufalo v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy [2011] FCAFC 111).

Section 479(4) of the Corporations Act 2001 provides that a liquidator may apply to the Court for directions regarding any matter arising in the winding up. Section 511 makes similar provision for liquidators in creditors’ voluntary windings up, including liquidations which have ensued from a voluntary administration. Whilst they are expressed in different terms, it has been held that there is no material difference between the provisions.

Section 447D gives the Court power to give directions to administrators, and deed administrators, about matters arising in connection with the performance or exercise of their functions and powers.

Sections 479(4), 511 and 447D have a common pedigree. The history of s 479(4) and its relationship to applications by trustees (particularly of deceased estates) for judicial advice were considered in detail by McClelland J. in GB Nathan & Co Pty Ltd (in liq) (1991) 24674 (see also Macedonian Orthodox Community Church St Petka Inc (2008) 249 ALR 250; see also Bufalo v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy [2011] FCAFC 111 (Mansfield, Besanko and Flick JJ).

The primary purpose of the court’s power to give judicial advice is the protection of those appointed by the Court to administer estates from allegations that they have acted improperly (Southern Cross Airlines Holdings Ltd (1998) 1 Qd R 84 at 93). It is also aimed at protecting the interests of trusts (Macedonian Orthodox Community Church St Petka Inc at [71] & [72]).

That is not to say that the court will grant a direction or approval whenever sought (Southern Cross Airlines Holdings Ltd at 92). It is important that the proposed direction:

relates to the manner in which the liquidator should act in carrying out the liquidator’s functions; and
will not adversely affect the legal rights or interests of other persons (or allow the liquidator to do so with impunity) (Southern Cross Airlines Holdings Ltd at 92).

However, an application for directions may be readily converted to an adversarial proceeding where the circumstances warrant it (Re Mento Developments (2009) 73 ACSR 622).

The power to give judicial advice extends to whether or not a liquidator is justified in prosecuting or defending proceedings (particularly having regard to the associated costs of doing so) (Macedonian Orthodox Community Church St Petka Inc at [71] & [72]).

The court may exercise its power to give judicial advice even with respect to and the liquidator’s proposal to enter into a commercial arrangement (Re Timbercorp Securities Ltd (in liq) (2009) 74 ACSR 626).

Further:

A liquidator is entitled to seek directions on the administration of the winding up even though the issue about which he seeks a direction may be or become an adversarial issue in other proceedings;

The direction or advice is to be directed to advising the liquidator on whether or not he or she is justified in conduct and winding up in a certain way and not deciding disputes between competing parties;

The direction or advice should not seek to resolve an issue between competing parties, but the fact that the advice may tend to foreclose an issue in other disputed proceedings is not of special significance in the court exercising its discretion to give private advice to the liquidator; and

Where a liquidator seeks advice on an issue which may be contested between competing parties, the court should be alert to not going further than is necessary to give the advice sought (Re Mento Developments (2009) 73 ACSR 622 at [49]).

It is common, for the applicant liquidator to nominate willing parties to act as contradictors in the proceeding. These are usually persons, such as creditors or classes of creditors, who have an interest in the outcome of the application. The identification of such persons is helpful because they are usually able to promote counter arguments that assist the Court in resolving the relevant issue or issues. The costs of such persons are usually agreed in advance to be met out of the assets of the liquidation.

Opinions differ as to the appropriate wording of a direction. Some judges prefer to give a direction that a liquidator is “justified” in taking a particular action. Others prefer to direct that the liquidator would be acting “reasonable” were he or she to adopt a particular course.

As to the equivalent law governing trustees in bankruptcy, see Bufalo v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy [2011] FCAFC 111.

When is Court/creditor approval required

A. Liquidators

As to liquidators’ powers generally, see s 477 Corporations Act 2001.

Liquidators are prohibited from doing any of the following unless they have the approval of the Court (Federal or Supreme), the approval of the committee of inspection (if there is one) or a resolution of creditors:

compromise a debt due to the company which is greater than $100,000 (s 477(2A));
enter into an agreement on the company’s behalf (such as a lease or a charge) which may remain on foot or involve the performance of obligations beyond three months from the date of the agreement (s 477(2B)).

Quaere whether settlement of a claim against a director for insolvent trading, which according to the terms of s 459M is a debt due to the company, requires Court or creditor approval.

A liquidator in a creditors’ voluntary winding up is prohibited from doing any of the following without the leave of the Court, unless and until the initial meeting of creditors under s 497 has been held:

pay any class of creditors in full (subjection to s 556) (ss 477(4) and 477(l)(b);
compromise or make any arrangement with creditors, or persons claiming to be creditors, of the company, or whereby the company may be rendered liable (s 477(4) and s 477(l)(c)); and
do anything necessary for the winding up of the company and distributing its property (ss 477(4) and 477(2)(m)).

The exercise by a liquidator of the powers conferred by s 477 is always subject to the control of the Court. Any creditor or contributory, or ASIC, may apply to the Court with respect to any exercise, or proposed exercise, of any of those powers (s 477(6); note also the power of the Court to review the actions, decisions and omissions of liquidators under s 1321).

A liquidator must have regard to any directions given by resolution of the creditors or by the committee of inspection. A direction by the former will override a direction by the latter (s 479(1)). The liquidator may convene meetings of creditors to ascertain their wishes, and is obliged to convene a meeting if required to do so by creditors having one tenth of the company’s debt (s 479(4)).

B. Administrators

While a company is under administration, the administrator:

has control of the company’s business, property and affairs;
may carryon the company’s business and manage its property and affairs;
may terminate or dispose of all or part of the business, and may dispose of any of the property; and
may perform any function, and exercise any power, that the company or any of its officers could perform or exercise if the company were not under administration (s 437A(l)).

The administrator has additional powers:

to remove a director from office;
to appoint a director;
to execute a document, bring or defend proceedings, or do anything else, in the company’s name and on its behalf; and
whatever else is necessary to the purposes of part 5.3A (s 442A).

A transfer of shares in a company during administration is void, unless:

the administrator has given written and unconditional consent to the transfer;
the administrator gives written consent and any conditions have been satisfied; or
the Court authorises the transfer (s 437F(1)).

An administrator’s consent to a transfer of shares is subject to review by the Court (s 437F(5) and (6). The Court will only authorise the transfer under s 437F(l)(c) if it is satisfied the transfer is in the best interests of the company’s creditors as a whole.

An administrator is prohibited from disposing of property subject to a charge, or property used by the company but owned by someone else (e.g. property leased by the company), unless:

the disposal is in the ordinary course of business;
the charge or owner consents; or
the administrator obtains the leave of the Court (s 442C).

The Court will only grant leave if it is satisfied that the chargee’s or owner’s rights are adequately protected (s 442C(3».

As in the case of liquidators, the actions, decisions and omissions of administrators, and deed administrators, are subjection to review by the Court (s 1321).

Author: Michael J Galvin 5 September 2011

Michael’s Profile

From the date of his admission in 1989 until commencing the Readers’ Course earlier in 1999, Michael worked with Gadens Lawyers, formerly J M Smith & Emmerton. He became an associate in 1991 and then a partner in 1994. He conducted an extensive insolvency practice as a solicitor for ten years advising liquidators, receivers, voluntary administrators, company directors, debtors, creditors, trustees and the Insolvency and Trustee Service Australia. He appeared in a variety of proceedings as a solicitor advocate including commercial hearings and trials in the Magistrates’, County, Supreme and Federal Courts and public examinations under the Corporations Law and Bankruptcy Act. Michael is co-author of the recently published Butterworth’s loose-leaf service “Bankruptcy Law and Practice”.

Telephone: (03) 9225 8235 Secretary: (03) 9225 6059 Chambers: Lonsdale Chambers, Level 5, 530 Lonsdale Street, Melbourne Vic 3000. Clerk: Michael Green (03) 9225 7222.

“Australian Insolvency Decisions” August 2011 edition

Industry People, Insolvency practices, Personal Bankruptcy Comments Off

Sep 012011

Compiled by Michael Ennis. Michael developed an interest in insolvency case law, while a Deputy Registrar in Bankruptcy at the Federal Court of Australia and while undertaking various roles at the Insolvency Trustee Service Australia (ITSA). He has maintained this interest since retiring. If you would like to receive the Insolvency Decisions schedule direct, advise Michael of additional decisions, or share your observations, you may contact Michael direct on rmci53mje@spin.net.au.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Bankruptcy Act – Prior to Date of Bankruptcy

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Goodman v Zhao [2011] FMCA 578 (26 July 2011) BANKRUPTCY – Creditors petition – debtor disputing the judgment debt – issues in relation to the judgment debt already litigated as far as the High Court – previous judgment of this Court dismissing a challenge to the bankruptcy notice subject to appeal in the Federal Court – no reason to defer a sequestration order http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FMCA/2011/578.html

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Kwok v Bank of Western Australia Limited [2011] FMCA 559 (22 July 2011) BANKRUPTCY – Application to set aside a Bankruptcy Notice brought pursuant to s.41(7) – requirements of section not make out – application dismissed http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FMCA/2011/559.html

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

“A question resolved – I had thought that there was a decision on point the other way” – M Ennis – Autron Pty Ltd v Benk [2011] FCAFC 93 (28 July 2011) BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY – bankruptcy notice – validity – whether post-judgment interest included in a bankruptcy notice can be a component of the prescribed statutory minimum for which a bankruptcy notice can be issued – consideration of the meaning of “final judgment” and “final order” http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCAFC/2011/93.html

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Bankruptcy Act – following Date of Bankruptcy

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Mango Boulevard Pty Ltd v Whitton; In the matter of Spencer (Bankrupt) (No 2) [2011] FCA 845 (28 July 2011) COSTS – bankruptcy – application for directions by trustee – whether trustee ought to have his costs paid out of funds held by him for the calling of a meeting of creditors – where trustee’s application to the court was reasonable – where need for directions arose from instruction of principal proceeding – order for costs reserved to the discretion of the trial judge COSTS – costs of interlocutory proceeding – application that costs be paid forthwith – circumstances in which order for costs to be paid forthwith may be made – where applicant had costs awarded against it in respect of transfer application – where bankruptcy jurisdiction is exercised in national court – order would cause injustice – order not made http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2011/845.html

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

“Note service of Bankruptcy Notice by email” – M Ennis – Topalides v Edey [2011] FMCA 556 (22 July 2011) BANKRUPTCY – Application for Review – suggestions of procedural faults and of misleading conduct – allegations of improper service or no service at all – consideration of statutory requirements – determination of no fault or error arising from service or otherwise http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FMCA/2011/556.html

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

“How rare is this, a S. 50; so it follows the subsequent decision is going to be of interest” – M Ennis – Tang & Anor v Bassili & Ors [2011] FMCA 544 (20 July 2011) BANKRUPTCY – ATO delivery of s.260-5 ITAA notices upon third party – questions of whether money “due” by third party to taxpayer debtor – third party purchaser due to pay money to taxpayer pursuant to contract for sale of land – land subject to registered mortgages securing debt due – money not due to taxpayer – money due to mortgagee – arrangements between parties to secure disputed fund pending trial – such arrangement did not disturb legal rights of parties – arrangement not render disputed fund due by party subject to s.260-5 notice http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FMCA/2011/544.html

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

CostaExchange Limited & Ors v Shephard (No.2) [2011] FMCA 545 (12 July 2011) BANKRUPTCY – Creditor’s petition – application to set aside sequestration order – operation of sequestration order stayed for 21 days on condition of payment by debtor to trustee – mistake affecting ability of debtor to comply – no grounds for setting aside sequestration order – no evidence of ‘fraud’ – sequestration order did reflect intentions of court – delay in applying for remedy – application refused http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FMCA/2011/545.html

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

CostaExchange Limited & Ors v Shephard [2010] FMCA 804 (12 October 2010) BANKRUPTCY – Creditor’s petition – costs in protracted litigation with debtor – debtor’s evidence did not show ability to pay debt – sequestration order made http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FMCA/2010/804.html

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Bankruptcy Act – Other Schemes under the Act

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

“As the year goes on the most complex of matters seem to be occurring – looking forward to decisions in these bankruptcies” – M Ennis – Robertson & Anor v Moran & Ors [2011] FMCA 496 (20 July 2011) BANKRUPTCY – Personal insolvency agreement – application to set aside – agreement not calculated to benefit creditors generally – large unsecured indebtedness – token contribution under agreement – dominant related creditors benefiting from continuing business activities of debtor – controlling trustee recommended against acceptance of agreement – further investigation of debtor’s business affairs warranted – application set aside – sequestration order made http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FMCA/2011/496.html

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Corporations – pre-appointment

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Time Of My Life Pty Limited -v- Windsor Turf Supplies Pty Limited (In Liquidation) [2011] NSWSC 916 (16 August 2011) CORPORATIONS – Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 459G(1), 459H(1) – application to set aside a statutory demand – genuine dispute as to existence of debt – statutory demand set aside http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWSC/2011/916.html

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Forensic Document Examiners Pty Ltd v Cristavao [2011] FCA 843 (28 July 2011) http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2011/843.html

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Refund Property Fees Pty Ltd v Prime Project Development (Cairns) Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 851 (21 July 2011) PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – interim receiver – whether to appoint an interim receiver of a secured loan under s 57 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) – where first respondent had purportedly assigned the loan to the applicant – where substantive proceeding claimed relief under the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) and the Property Law Act 1974 (Qld) – where receiver would have powers to release security – where receiver would receive monies under loan and pay unsecured creditors instead of secured creditors – where security was effectively held separately – misunderstanding as to the nature of a receiver – necessary party not joined – receiver not appointed – applicant to file and serve statement of claim http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2011/851.html

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Corporations – post appointment

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

S E Vineyard Finance Pty Ltd (recs & mgrs apptd) v Casey [2011] VSC 403 (26 August 2011) APPEAL – Magistrates’ Court – Whether numerous challenges to Magistrate’s findings raised a question of law. TRADE PRACTICES – Whether there were misleading and deceptive representations in prospectus for establishment of vineyard – Omission to mention round robin transaction involving monies borrowed from appellant to pay management fees for vineyard – Whether credit provider knowingly concerned – Whether linked credit provider liable for misrepresentation – Meaning of consumer – Whether claims outside limitation period – Unconscionable conduct – Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), ss 48, 51AC, 52, 73, 82. EQUITY – Whether fiduciary relationship existed – Whether there was a breach of fiduciary duty – Equitable damages – Constructive trust http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSC/2011/403.html

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Re Keldane Pty Ltd (in liq) [2011] VSC 385 (23 August 2011) CORPORATIONS – Termination of winding up – Sufficiency of material for the Court to order termination – Doubt about whether the creditors’ resolution would have been passed on the material before them – Validation of appointment of administrators – Whether approval by creditors is to be given before or at the time of administrator’s appointment – ss 436B(2) and 482(1) Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSC/2011/385.html

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Re Timbercorp Limited (in liq) [2011] VSC 189 (23 August 2011) Corporations – Approval of compromise – Insurance claim – Allocation of proceeds – Confidentiality of terms of settlement and legal advice – Applications under ss 477(2A) and 511 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSC/2011/189.html

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

CAREY -v- KORDA & WINTERBOTTOM [No 2] [2011] WASC 220 (26 August 2011) Catchwords:
Evidence – Privilege – Legal professional privilege – Receivers and managers – Whether solicitors engaged by receiver and manager are engaged to act for company – Whether sufficient basis to maintain claim for legal professional privilege over bills of costs and recharge schedules – Whether legal professional privilege waived – Whether privilege abrogated by statute http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/wa/WASC/2011/220.html

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

GREAT SOUTHERN MANAGERS AUSTRALIA LTD (IN LIQ) IN ITS CAPACITY AS RESPONSIBLE ENTITY OF THE MANAGED INVESTMENT SCHEMES LISTED IN SCHEDULE 1 -v- THACKRAY [No 3] [2011] WASC 195 (12 August 2011) Catchwords: Corporations – Managed Investment Scheme – Rights Proceeding – Withdrawal of defences and counterclaims in Rights Proceeding – Allocation of net proceeds of fund – Rights of respective claimants – Turns on own facts http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/wa/WASC/2011/195.html

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

MICHAEL OSCAR BASEDOW AS ADMINISTRATOR OF FIRST GROWTH FUNDS LTD (ADMINISTRATOR APPOINTED) [2011] SASC 132 (16 August 2011) Application for directions by Administrator – consideration of assets of company – whether approval should be given to dispose of certain assets prior to the second creditors meeting – difficulty of attributing value to assets – some assets consisted irrecoverable debts – agreements entered into by Administrator subject to the Court’s direction http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/sa/SASC/2011/132.html

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Constantinidis & Anor v Landcorp (NSW) Pty Ltd (in liq) & Ors [2011] NSWSC 872 (16 August 2011) Costs – costs ordered against plaintiffs where application to extend caveat could not have succeeded http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWSC/2011/872.html

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

In the matter of Tumut River Orchard Management Limited (in liq) ABN 003 501 611 [2011] NSWSC 915 (15 August 2011) CORPORATIONS – application for appointment of liquidator – s 502 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) – where company in liquidation without liquidator — r 7.2 of the Supreme Court (Corporations) Rules 1999 (NSW) – whether plaintiff can bring the application where it is neither a creditor nor a contributory of the company – held r 7.2(2)(a) does not create a closed class – held s 502 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) does not restrict who may properly make the application – s 14 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) – if it were otherwise the present case is an appropriate one in which to dispense with rule – r 1.8 of the Supreme Court (Corporations) Rules 1999 (NSW) – liquidator appointed http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWSC/2011/915.html

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Chand v Azurra Pty Ltd (in liquidation) [2011] NSWCA 227 (5 August 2011) ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – judicial review – procedural fairness – whether Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal denied applicants procedural fairness in giving no weight to expert report on basis of non-compliance with Makita v Sprowles principles – whether Tribunal denied applicants procedural fairness in excluding one applicant from hearing room while her husband was being cross-examined – whether excluded applicant was denied a reasonable opportunity to be present and participate in the proceedings on second hearing day ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – judicial review – relief sought in the nature of certiorari – whether Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal made factual findings in the absence of any evidence to support those findings EVIDENCE – principle in Jones v Dunkel – whether failure to call available party eyewitness relevant to assessment of evidence of another party eyewitness who was called http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWCA/2011/227.html

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

CHICAGO BOOT CO P/L v DAVIES & MCINTOSH AS JOINT & SEVERAL LIQUIDATORS OF HARRIS SCARFE LTD [2011] SASCFC 92 (23 August 2011) CORPORATIONS – WINDING UP – CONDUCT AND INCIDENTS OF WINDING UP – EFFECT OF WINDING UP ON OTHER TRANSACTIONS – PREFERENCES http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/sa/SASCFC/2011/92.html

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Bridgeport Pty Ltd v Yelyruss Pty Ltd (in liq) and Anor [2011] QSC 237 (2 August 2011) Procedure – Supreme Court procedure – Queensland – Procedure under Uniform Civil Procedure Rules and predecessors – Other matters – application for leave to add contributor to notice of claim – factors considered – significant delay – prejudice – contribution would not be significant – leave not granted http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/qld/QSC/2011/237.html

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

In the matter of Lawrence Waterhouse Pty Ltd (in liq) – Shaw v Minsden Pty Ltd [2011] NSWSC 964 (24 August 2011) CORPORATIONS – whether transfer of land and/or creation of charge over land is/are insolvent transaction(s) pursuant to s 588FC of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) or unreasonable director-related transaction(s) pursuant to s 588FDA (and, in either case, voidable pursuant to s 588FE) – in the alternative, whether transfer and/or creation of charge is/are alienation(s) of land with intent to defraud a creditor pursuant to s 37A of the Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW) – CONTRACTS – whether rights and equitable interest arising under transfer have been abandoned – TRUSTS – whether transferee (Minsden) holds land and/or charge on constructive trust for transferor (Lawrence Waterhouse) – whether Lawrence Waterhouse held land as trustee for its director (Wayne Lawrence) and, if so, whether Lawrence Waterhouse is entitled to indemnification – whether, if transfer void or set aside, land is held on constructive trust for Wayne Lawrence and subject to an equitable charge in his favour – HELD – abandonment not established – Lawrence Waterhouse held land as trustee for Wayne Lawrence at time of transfer – Lawrence Waterhouse entitled to indemnification and to trace land into hands of Minsden for that purpose – charge set aside as unreasonable director-related transaction and alienation of property with intent to defraud creditor – CORPORATIONS – whether Lawrence Waterhouse has kept proper books and records for purposes of s 286 of the Corporations Act – if not, whether presumption of insolvency has been rebutted – whether Wayne Lawrence has breached any civil penalty provisions and exculpatory relief should be granted – HELD – failure to keep proper books and records – presumption of insolvency rebutted up to date of withdrawal of support by Wayne Lawrence – breach of statutory duty established – exculpatory relief not granted so as to absolve director from obligation to account for any loss sustained through breach of that duty http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWSC/2011/964.html

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

“Receivers & Managers” – M Ennis – Olde & Ors v Primary Compass Limited ACN 129 159 812 [2011] NSWSC 845 (8 August 2011) PROCEDURE – civil – interlocutory issues – injunction to restrain call on bank guarantee – whether implied term of guarantee that would only be used to meet certain liabilities – no serious question to be tried – interrelationship between “serious question to be tried” and “balance of convenience” http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWSC/2011/845.html

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Horley v Sector 7G Architecture Pty Ltd (in liquidation) [2011] NSWSC 827 (4 August 2011) APPEAL – appeal under s 39 of the Local Court Act 2007 – leave sought to carry on proceedings pursuant to s 500(2) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) – leave under s 40 of the Local Court Act 2007 – adequate reasons for decision not given – architectural services provided for the reconstruction of a guest house – whether claim decided in contract or quantum meruit – credit findings – terms of agreement reached – whether agreement reached as to fixed fee on implied term that reasonable sum would be paid – appeal upheld – decision below set aside http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWSC/2011/827.html

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Roufeil v Gliderol International Pty Limited [2011] FCA 847 (29 July 2011) CORPORATIONS – voidable transactions – whether certain payments were voidable transactions within the meaning of s 588FE(2) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) – whether payments were “unfair preferences” given by company to creditor – whether payments were made while company was insolvent – whether company presumed to be insolvent by virtue of s 588E of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2011/847.html

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

“Significant debts in this matter” – M Ennis – Fortress Credit Corporation (Australia) II Pty Ltd v Fletcher [2011] FCAFC 89 (25 July 2011) CORPORATIONS – powers of liquidator in winding up – whether company’s entry into agreement to fund litigation intended to be commenced by a creditor was expedient for the winding up of the company’s affairs and the distribution of its property – whether possible commercial return from sharing in proceeds of litigation adequate to attract s 477(2)(m) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for leave to appeal by non-party – where prospective appellant held charge over the assets of the party to be funded in the litigation, which security would potentially be diminished according to the terms of the litigation funding agreement if that agreement were approved http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCAFC/2011/89.html

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Miscellaneous

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

COMMONWEALTH BANK OF AUSTRALIA -v- SHADDICK [2011] WASC 205 (22 August 2011) Catchwords: Property law – Service of default notice – Whether notice has to come to attention of mortgagor – Proper mode of service http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/wa/WASC/2011/205.html

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

YZERMAN -v- SCHOFIELD [2011] WASC 200 (15 August 2011) Catchwords: Conflict of laws – Leave to issue writ and serve out of jurisdiction – Application to revoke or set aside order granting leave to issue writ and serve out of jurisdiction – Related proceedings instituted in England – Dispute over beneficial ownership of land – Forum non conveniens – Relationship between remedies – Inappropriateness of local forum – Registered joint tenancy of land in Western Australia – Parties resident in England – Action for sale of land in Western Australia under s 126 of Property Law Act – Discretionary considerations http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/wa/WASC/2011/200.html

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Break Fast Investments Pty Ltd v C & O Voukidis Pty Ltd [2011] NSWSC 871 (15 August 2011) Caveat – form of caveat – whether description of interest adequate – leave to lodge further caveat http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWSC/2011/871.html

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Gigi Entertainment Pty Limited v Basil John Macree (No. 2) [2011] NSWSC 869 (12 August 2011) SOLICITOR – COSTS – lien – delivery of former client’s papers to new solicitor – solicitor’s rules – whether solicitors undertaking satisfactorily secures payment of former solicitor’s costs and disbursements – Legal Profession Act 2004, s 728 – appropriate conditions http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWSC/2011/869.html

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Registered Trustee voluntarily resigns from bankruptcy appointments

Industry People, Personal Bankruptcy Comments Off

Aug 032011

The following media release from Insolvency Trustee Service Australia (ITSA) on 11 July 2011 concerning Mr Paul Pattison escaped my attention:

REGULATOR WELCOMES COURT ORDERS PROVIDING FOR VOLUNTARY RESIGNATION OF MELBOURNE-BASED BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE PAUL PATTISON

Melbourne-based Registered Trustee, Paul Pattison, has voluntarily resigned from his bankruptcy appointments following concerns by the regulator, Insolvency and Trustee Service Australia (ITSA), about his capacity to adequately and properly carry out his duties.

On Friday 08 July 2011, the Federal Court of Australia accepted Mr Pattison’s voluntary resignation and orders were obtained appointing the Official Trustee (ITSA) to administer the 272 bankruptcy matters which were formerly administered by him. Arrangements are being made to ensure the smooth transfer and ongoing administration of these bankrupt estates.

Mr Pattison resigned as trustee of these matters and gave an undertaking that he would cease to carry out, consent to, or otherwise accept appointment as a trustee, until he produces evidence in a form acceptable to ITSA or to the Court demonstrating he has the practice and financial capacity to adequately and properly carry out his duties as a trustee.

Friday’s orders follow ongoing scrutiny into Mr Pattison’s financial capacity to undertake his duties. ITSA also liaised with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission in the lead up to the commencement of a formal process investigating this and related issues. No findings of impropriety as to the conduct of Mr Pattison as a trustee were made.

Adam Toma

National Manager Regulation and Enforcement

Insolvency and Trustee Service Australia

Ph: 1300 364 785

Large majority of insolvency administrators comply

ASIC, Forms, Insolvency Laws, Insolvency practices, Insolvency Statistics, Practitioners Association (IPAA), Regulation Comments Off

Jun 162011

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has found that “the large majority” of registered liquidators are complying with their statutory duty to lodge six-monthly accounts of receipts and payments (Companies Form 524) (“financial statements”) in respect of external administrations they are conducting.

In a special compliance program the ASIC analysed its database of approximately 24,800 companies in external administration at March 2010. It identified 517 external administrations where a Form 524/financial statement had been outstanding for a period of more than six months; and 171 registered liquidators who appeared to be at fault.

Preliminary results of the program were published in the December 2010 issue of “ASIC Insolvency Update – an update for registered liquidators”.

Final results have just been published in an article by the ASIC in the June 2011 edition of “Australian Insolvency Journal”, the journal for members of the Insolvency Practitioners Association of Australia (IPA). The article and the chart accompanying it show that:

In only 2.1% of external administrations were financial statements by the administrator overdue (517 out of 24,800).
In the 517 identified external administrations:
- there were an estimated 2,472 financial statements outstanding;
- one registered liquidator had more than 800 outstanding financial statements;
- another registered liquidator had 135 outstanding financial statements;
- 612 financial statements were lodged as a result of the ASIC project; and
- 469 financial statements would be lodged as a result of the project because the external administrators had acknowledged that they had not been lodged.
The ASIC wrote to 171 registered liquidators regarding outstanding financial statements. 63% of the liquidators were from small to medium size firms (of 1 to 9 practitioners). 7 registered liquidators “did not respond (to the ASIC) within the project timeframe”.
The most common reasons for not lodging financial statements were:
- “inadequate monitoring of internal control systems (including lack of staff supervision);
- inadequate internal control systems;
- staff turnover combined with heavy workloads; and
- incorrect use or delayed implementation of insolvency-based software.”

There are some other findings and explanations reported in the article. ASIC Commissioner, Michael Dwyer, says: “It was pleasing to see that the large majority of practitioners complied with their obligation to lodge accounts”.

[Undoubtedly the ASIC’s final report will appear in a form available to non-members of the IPA shortly. As soon as a link becomes available I will insert it in this blog.]

Principles of professional conduct for liquidators and bankruptcy trustees

Checklists and guides, Ethics, Insolvency practices, Practitioners Association (IPAA), Standards Comments Off

Apr 282011

Set out below are seventeen principles of professional conduct devised by the trade body for Australian insolvency practitioners to govern and inform their conduct as liquidators, administrators, receivers and bankruptcy trustees.

The Insolvency Practitioners Association of Australia (IPA) says that the primary purposes of its Code of Professional Practice (Code) are “to:

set standards of conduct for insolvency professionals;
inform and educate IPA members as to the standards of conduct required of them
in the discharge of their professional responsibilities; and
provide a reference for stakeholders against which they can gauge the conduct of IPA members. “

The summary of principles presented below is taken from the Code. Each principle is described in great detail in the Code. A PDF copy of the 124 page Code is available at the IPAA website, or may be found HERE. Earlier versions of the Code may be found HERE. This current edition of the Code has been effective since 1 January 2011.

_______________________________________________________________

The Principles

Conduct

Principle 1 Members must exhibit the highest levels of integrity, objectivity and impartiality in all aspects of Administrations and practice management.

Principle 2 When accepting or retaining an Appointment the Practitioner must at all times during the Administration be, and be seen to be, independent.

Principle 3 Disclosure and acceptance of a lack of independence is not a cure.

Principle 4 Members must communicate with affected parties in a manner that is accurate, honest, open, clear, succinct and timely to ensure effective understanding of the processes, and their rights and obligations.

Principle 5 Members must attend to their duties in a timely way.

Principle 6 A Practitioner must not acquire directly or indirectly any assets under the administration of the Practitioner.

Principle 7 When promoting themselves, or their firm, or when competing for work, Members must act with integrity and must not bring the profession into disrepute.

Principle 8 When dealing with other Members in transitioning or parallel appointments, Members must be professional and co-operative, without compromising the obligations of the Member in their own particular appointment.

Principle 9 Practitioners must maintain professional competency in the practice of insolvency.

Remuneration

Principle 10 A Practitioner is entitled to claim remuneration, and disbursements, in respect of necessary work, properly performed in an Administration.

Principle 11 A claim by a Practitioner for remuneration must provide sufficient, meaningful, open and clear disclosure to the Approving Body so as to allow that body to make an informed decision as to whether the proposed remuneration is reasonable.

Principle 12 A Practitioner is entitled to draw remuneration once it is approved and according to the terms of the approval.

Practice Management

Principle 13 When accepting an Appointment the Practitioner must ensure that their Firm has adequate expertise and resources for the type and size of the Administration, or the capacity to call in that expertise and those resources as needed.

Principle 14 Members must implement policies, procedures and systems to ensure effective Quality Assurance.

Principle 15 Members must implement policies, procedures and systems to ensure effective Compliance Management.

Principle 16 Members must implement policies, procedures and systems to ensure effective Risk Management.

Principle 17 Members must implement policies, procedures and systems to ensure effective Complaints Management.

______________________________________________________________

The IPAA says:

“The Code is a living document. It will continue to be amended from time to time to reflect changes and developments in insolvency law and practice. …. (and) it is the fundamental building block upon which the insolvency profession sets and manages standards of professional conduct. We were gratified to see the ready acceptance of the Code by the profession, regulatory bodies and the Courts following its initial release.”

______________________________________________________________

Author: P Keenan 28/4/2011

Insolvency Practitioners Assoc urges member caution on tax liability

Practitioners Association (IPAA), Priority Debts, Tax debts, Tax liabilities, Taxation Issues Comments Off

Mar 102011

Australia’s Insolvency Practitioners Association (IPA) has told members to:

“be aware that the sale of an asset of the insolvent company or individual may trigger a capital gains tax (CGT) liability. The practitioner then needs to determine the status of that liability. The law in relation to where CGT liability falls on the sale of an asset by an insolvency practitioner is not clear”.

The warning appears today (March 10, 2011) on the IPA website.

The issue of post-appointment tax debts has been highlighted on this blog as follows:

o Post-appointment income tax debts of liquidator (October 10, 2010)

o Taxing capital gains made during liquidation (October 15, 2010)

o Legal opinion warns external administrators about personal liability for company taxes (November 16, 2010)

The IPA’s complete statement reads:

“Capital gains tax – need for caution in insolvency administrations

Insolvency practitioners should be aware that the sale of an asset of the insolvent company or individual may trigger a capital gains tax (CGT) liability. The practitioner then needs to determine the status of that liability. The law in relation to where CGT liability falls on the sale of an asset by an insolvency practitioner is not clear.

For example, in the case of a controllership, the liability may be a liability of the company itself, or a personal liability of the controller. In the case of a bankruptcy, the CGT liability may fall on the bankrupt or become a liability of the trustee or simply be a post-bankruptcy debt.

The IPA has been in discussions with the ATO for some time in an attempt to come to a correct position. The ATO is yet to give its view or issue any ruling.

The IPA will advise members of any developments in clarifying the legal position with the ATO. In the meantime, members should be aware of this issue and take their own advice as necessary in relation to CGT liabilities in their administrations.

Any questions, please contact us.”

It would be interesting to know what the IPA’s point of view is on this tax issue. Presumably there is disagreement between it and the ATO as the two of them work together to “come to the correct position”. More than likely the point of contention concerns the personal liability of external administrators.

Liquidator voluntarily resigns

ASIC, Industry People, Insolvency Laws, Prosecution of Liquidators, Regulation Comments Off

Mar 022011

Paul Pattison – the Australian liquidator whose own private company became insolvent – has voluntarily resigned from his company appointments and agreed not to take on any more until he demonstrates that he has the financial capacity to adequately and properly perform his duties as a liquidator.

The announcement was made on 1 March 2011 by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC), which applied on 7 February to the Supreme Court of Victoria for suspension of his license to practice.

ASIC’s investigation into the conduct and affairs of Mr Pattison and two of his private companies is continuing.

In its media release ASIC states:

Following Mr Pattison’s voluntary resignation, ASIC yesterday obtained orders by consent in the Supreme Court of Victoria appointing new liquidators or deed administrators to 80 companies which were formerly administered by him.

Mr Pattison resigned as liquidator or deed administrator of those companies and gave an undertaking that he would cease to carry out, consent to, or otherwise accept appointment as a liquidator, provisional liquidator, voluntary administrator, administrator of a deed of company arrangement or controller, until he produces evidence in a form acceptable to ASIC or to the Court which demonstrates he has the practice and financial capacity to adequately and properly carry out his duties as a liquidator.

Yesterday’s consent orders follow the commencement of ASIC’s action against Mr Pattison and Pattison Business Recovery & Insolvency Specialists Pty Ltd (PBRIS) in the Supreme Court of Victoria. On 7 February 2011, ASIC asked the Supreme Court to begin an inquiry into Mr Pattison’s conduct and his capacity to adequately and properly perform his duties as a liquidator.

Upon making the orders by consent, the Court ordered that these proceedings be otherwise dismissed.

No findings of impropriety as to the conduct of Mr Pattison as a liquidator were made.

ASIC’s investigation into the conduct and affairs of Mr Pattison, PBRIS and his former company, Pattison Consulting Pty Ltd, is continuing. ASIC will make no further comment on the investigation at this time.

Regulator challenges liquidator’s right to practice

ASIC, Practitioners Association (IPAA), Prosecution of Liquidators, Regulation Comments Off

Feb 162011

The financial collapse of a private company belonging to a liquidator has led the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) to apply to the Supreme Court of Victoria for suspension of his license to practice. This was recently revealed by business journalist Leonie Wood of The Age.

The liquidator, Paul Pattison, of Melbourne, is a former director of Pattison Consulting Pty Ltd.

Pattison Consulting Pty Ltd – which ran his insolvency firm – made a declaration of solvency and went into a members voluntary (solvent) liquidation in April 2010. In the Declaration of Solvency filed with ASIC at the time Mr Pattison said Pattison Consulting Pty Ltd had a net worth of $250,000, comprised of assets worth $4.62 million (including “work in progress” of $4.1 million), less liabilities of $4.37million. (Ordinarily in this context, “work in progress” would mean fees accrued but not yet billed for work done in connection with insolvency appointments.)

In November 2010 the liquidator of Pattison Consulting Pty Ltd resigned, and both a voluntary administrator and a receiver were appointed. In December 2010 creditors resolved to wind up the company as a creditors voluntary (insolvent) winding up. The company changed its name to ACN 079 638 501 Pty Ltd.

Throughout these events Mr Pattison continued to practice as a registered liquidator, court appointed liquidator and trustee in bankruptcy, and does so to this day, because , in the words of the Insolvency Practitioners Association (IPA), insolvency appointments are “personal to a practitioner, rather than to a company or firm”.

Commencement of ASIC’s proceedings has led the IPA to suspend his membership of the Association and commence disciplinary proceedings against him. (IPA Media Release)

Neither ASIC nor the IPA has suggested that there is anything wrong with the way in which Mr Pattison has ran any of his numerous insolvency administrations.

__________________________

UPDATE 2/3/2011: Now see my article “Liquidator voluntarily resigns”.

Liquidator John David Adams passes away

Industry People Comments Off

Nov 032010

John Adams, a well-known Melbourne liquidator, passed away on 31 October 2010 at the age of 66.

In the years that I knew him well (1979 to 1984) John was a knowledgable and respected liquidator with a professional approach combined with loads of business nous and common sense. Just as importantly he was also warm, generous and a lot of fun to be around. I will be forever grateful to him for having faith in me and giving me a start in public accounting and the insolvency profession when he was a partner at Parkhill Lithgow and Gibson, Chartered Accountants.

Rest in peace JDA.

Newer Entries