Justice Croft of the Supreme Court of Victoria removed a liquidator from the winding up of a company determining he failed to act honestly by settling unfair preference claims with the ATO and SRO without disclosing key information in Re Gemwood Projects Pty Ltd (in liq) [2025] VSC 819.  

The interests of a secured party are not unfailing, and appropriate attention should be given to ensuring that they are placed to receive the best outcome from administration. The extent of this susceptibility was highlighted in the recent Federal Court decision of Jones (Admin) v Realtek Semiconductor Corp Nuheara Ltd (Admins Apptd) (No 1) [2025].

Where an arrangement undermines the entitlements of a secured creditor, consideration should be had to the benefits conferred by the arrangement on other creditors broadly, particularly where the alternative is liquidation.

The matter of Ford Kinter & Associates Pty Ltd v Reliance Franchise Partners Pty Ltd (in liq) [2025] FCA 139 emphasises the important role that creditors can play in facilitating asset recovery during insolvency proceedings. It further examines the broad discretionary powers the courts have under section 564 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the Act), which enables courts to reward creditors who take on the financial risks of litigation to be prioritised when recovering company property or expenses in a winding up due to the risk assumed by them. In doing so, the court considers the public interest in encouraging creditors to provide indemnities so as to enable assets to be recovered.

#insolvency #liquidation #creditors #publicinterest

Guidance has been provided to liquidators by the Federal Court of Australia in Stone (Liquidator), in the matter of RIC Admin Pty Ltd (in liq) v Mandalinic (No 2) regarding the analysis of financial records required to determine the solvency of a company and what conduct of a director will constitute an unreasonable director related transaction.