The Supreme Court has confirmed that declarations can be made approving settlement payments and the mere fact that a liquidator has acted on incorrect advice will not preclude a settlement payment being regarded as an expense “properly incurred” for the purposes of s 556(1)(a) of the Corporations Act.
Category: Insolvency Law
The Supreme Court of Victoria has dismissed an application by a company to set aside a statutory demand which sought repayment of a loan which was to be repaid “as soon as practicable”. The Court held that the term as to repayment was void for uncertainty, and that the loan was accordingly immediately due and payable from its inception.
When serving an application to set aside a statutory demand interstate, the strict modes prescribed by SEPA trump service under the Corporations Act (or any mode of informal effective service which might otherwise suffice). Practitioners forgetting this may face a rather abrupt conclusion to proceedings.
Bond’s Bell group litigation never dies: High Court strikes down WA laws as constitutionally invalid
Alan Bond passed away last year, but the legal battles over the 1990 collapse of his Bell Group companies may yet continue. The High Court has declared state legislation, which was designed to end the long-running litigation by short-circuiting certain aspects of the Corporations Act 2001 (C’th), constitutionally invalid.
Pursuing a lawyer in VCAT for non-compliance with a notice issued under s 530B of the Corporations Act
A liquidator has successfully relied on legal profession disciplinary legislation to challenge a lawyer’s non-compliance with a s 530B notice. The result is that the dispute was heard and determined in VCAT, as opposed to the Supreme Court of Victoria which traditionally has jurisdiction over s 530B notices
Insurers on the hook: High Court holds that insurers of insolvent companies can be joined to proceedings commenced by third parties against those companies
The High Court of Australia has held unanimously that a person who commences proceedings against an insolvent company or a bankrupt individual can join that defendant’s insurer to the proceedings and seek a declaration that the insurer is liable to indemnify the defendant.
A trustee in bankruptcy can object to discharge on grounds that go beyond those specified in the Bankruptcy Act.
A bankruptcy trustee’s notice objecting to discharge on one of the special grounds specified in the Bankruptcy Act 1966 can be valid even if based on additional unstated reasons, so long as those reasons are directed to the achievement of a purpose of the law of bankruptcy.
The costs of ‘convening’. Whether the person requesting a meeting of creditors, pursuant to 5.6.15(1)(b) of the Corporations Regulations 2001 (Cth) be called is only liable for the costs of calling the meeting.
Assets purchased by a bankrupt from his or her exempt income vest automatically in the bankruptcy trustee
Whether inconsistency between Div 4B of Pt VI, s 58(1)(b) in Div 4 of Pt IV and s 116 of Pt VI of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth)
Application of Personal Properties Securities Act 2009 (Cth) and the operation of section 588FL and section 588FN of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)
Consideration of ‘special federal matter’ within the meaning of s 6(1) of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross Vesting Act) 1987 (Cth)
Whether application seeking a declaration for or against the title of the trustee to a trustee in bankruptcy under s 58(1)(a) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) is a ‘special federal matter’ within the meaning of s 6(1) of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross Vesting Act) 1987 (Cth).
Can shares acquired with income below threshold amount to after-acquired property vesting in trustee under the Bankruptcy Act?
Examination of whether shares purchased from a bankrupt’s income below the threshold amount in respect of which he was required to make contributions to his trustee under Division 4B of Part 6 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) is within the meaning of “after acquired property” in s 58(1).
The decision is significant because it confirms that a payment of a dividend to a creditor does not necessarily extinguish the company’s claim for the balance in fact owing to it.
Modified universalism: Full Federal Court protects the rights of a local creditor in a cross-border insolvency
The Full Federal Court has confirmed a “modified universalism” approach to cross-border insolvencies, and provided guidance on what is required for the “adequate protection” of rights of local creditors under the Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency (‘Model Law’), as enacted in Australia by the Cross-Border Insolvency Act 2008 (Cth).