Liquidators

In the matter of Sundara [2015] NSWSC 1694

A lender appointed receivers to four borrowers and sold the secured properties. The sole director of each borrower claimed that the loans were farm debts and the lender contravened the Farm Debt Mediation Act by failing to give notice to permit mediation and hence its enforcement action and sale of the properties was void and …

In the matter of Sundara [2015] NSWSC 1694 Read More »

Park & Muller (liquidators of LM Investment Management) v. Whyte (receiver of the LM First Mortgage Investment Fund) [2015] QSC 283

The responsible entity of the LM First Mortgage Investment Fund went into liquidation and liquidators were appointed to manage the responsible entity to wind it up as well as the scheme itself under section 601NE(1) of the Corporations Act pursuant to court orders. A receiver was also appointed to ensure the scheme was wound up …

Park & Muller (liquidators of LM Investment Management) v. Whyte (receiver of the LM First Mortgage Investment Fund) [2015] QSC 283 Read More »

Cheetham v 805 Archer Road [2015] VSC 96

A joint venture partner lent $200,000 secured by a mortgage. The mortgage was never executed or registered and when the borrower went into liquidation, the liquidators tried to claim that the joint venture partner had lost his security either as a result of voting in favour of the deed of company arrangement or because he …

Cheetham v 805 Archer Road [2015] VSC 96 Read More »

Perpetual Nominees v McGoldrick [2014] VSC 152

The lender sought summary judgment for the shortfall on its debt. The guarantors claimed negligence on the part of the administrators/liquidators appointed by the lender to handle the sale. The court did not agree with the lender that the no setoff clause in the guarantee provided a complete answer to guarantors’ claims. The court said: …

Perpetual Nominees v McGoldrick [2014] VSC 152 Read More »

Australian Property Custodian Holdings v Capital Finance Australia [2012] VSC 124

In this case the liquidators and the lender were fighting over the right to sue a third party. The liquidator argued that a charging clause the lender was relying on could not extend to a future right but this was rejected by the court: There is no reason why a charge (if its proper construction …

Australian Property Custodian Holdings v Capital Finance Australia [2012] VSC 124 Read More »

Scroll to Top