Yesterday the Supreme Court published its long-awaited decision in the Joe & Joe Developments litigation.
The litigation has been the subject of much gossip in the industry as it concerned allegations of rampant overcharging by insolvency practitioners and their lawyers. Commentators and industry observers have been poised, salivating, waiting for the scandal to break.
In the event, as is often the case with gossip, the facts were found not to justify the hype. Continue reading
A liquidator does not always need to provide security for costs when bringing actions in the name of an insolvent company. Continue reading
Recently, the Victorian Supreme Court handed down a judgment that makes it clear that if you are really being appointed as a receiver, you cannot escape the more stringent regulatory requirements by terming yourself a controller. Continue reading
In a decision handed down yesterday, the Supreme Court got well and truly stuck in to liquidators and their lawyers. Continue reading
Do liquidators have a duty of care to the guarantors of secured debt?
A recent decision of the Victorian Supreme Court has built on a 2007 South Australian decision suggesting that they do. Continue reading
This update concerns a significant new risk for tax agents, which is fortunately able to be minimised by implementing a single, simple measure. Continue reading
The Federal Court has recently issued a stark warning about the need for insolvency practitioners to do their homework, thoroughly, before approaching the court for directions – and to use the court only to clarify points that remain unclear after proper investigation and research. Continue reading
In a decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales handed down this morning, a sharp reminder was given to insolvency practitioners – if you spend creditors’ money on futile court proceedings, you might find that it is not creditors’ money you’ve been spending. Continue reading