*Please note that the links to the content in this Part will direct you to Westlaw AU. If you are using Checkpoint, the links can be found in the Checkpoint PDF at the bottom of this post.<\/p>\n
To purchase an article, please email: LTA.Service@thomsonreuters.com or contact us on 1300 304 195 (Australian customers) or +61 2 8587 7980 (international customers) during business hours (Mon-Fri, 8am-6pm AST).<\/p>\n
The latest issue of the Insolvency Law Journal<\/em> (Volume 26 Part 2) contains the following material:<\/p>\n EDITORIAL<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c General Editors: Professor Rosalind Mason and Dr David Morrison<\/em><\/p>\n Mortgagee Sales, Disclaimer and Escheat<\/em> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c A Suggested Statutory Solution<\/strong><\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c William Dixon, Sharon Christensen and WD Duncan<\/p>\n The process by which a registered mortgagee may exercise power of sale following default by a mortgagor is well understood. However, where the mortgaged property has been disclaimed as being onerous property by a trustee in bankruptcy or a liquidator, the case law reveals that there is uncertainty concerning the manner in which the mortgaged property may escheat to the State. Faced with this dilemma, mortgagees are increasingly seeking vesting orders and joining the State as a party in order to facilitate the sale process. This article examines the unsatisfactory state of the present case law and suggests a statutory solution consistent with a mortgagee sale largely remaining a non-curial process.<\/p>\n A Blind Spot in the Test for Solvency? Reconsidering the Exclusion of Unliquidated Damages Claims <\/strong><\/em><\/a>\u00e2\u20ac\u201c Annita Stucken<\/p>\n Unliquidated damages claims continue to linger beyond the scope of s 95A of the Corporations Act 2001 <\/em>(Cth), affording directors \u00e2\u20ac\u0153blind spot\u00e2\u20ac\u009d vision as they assess a company\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s financial affairs. This article examines the exclusion of unliquidated claims under the standing authority of Box Valley, and questions whether it remains justified as directors navigate the opaque boundary of insolvent trading liability or consider taking refuge in the new \u00e2\u20ac\u0153safe harbour\u00e2\u20ac\u009d. In particular, the article re-examines the orthodox exclusion in light of the rising \u00e2\u20ac\u0153corporate rescue\u00e2\u20ac\u009d policy objective and the \u00e2\u20ac\u0153commercial realities\u00e2\u20ac\u009d of financial affairs, a hallmark of the s 95A solvency assessment. Ultimately, the article proposes a subtle refinement to the orthodox exclusion in order to capture those claims that are both \u00e2\u20ac\u0153reasonably temporally proximate\u00e2\u20ac\u009d to the solvency assessment and \u00e2\u20ac\u0153reasonably ascertainable\u00e2\u20ac\u009d to a prudent business person. This refinement would reconcile the traditional insolvent trading policy objectives with the rising call to encourage corporate rescue. Perhaps more importantly, it would erase the blind spot that currently sanctions a imprudent assessment of a company\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s financial affairs.<\/p>\n RECENT DEVELOPMENTS<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Dr David Morrison<\/em><\/p>\n REPORT FROM NEW ZEALAND<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Lynne Taylor<\/em><\/p>\n For the PDF\u00c2\u00a0version of the table of contents, click here: Westlaw AU – Insolv LJ Vol 26 No 2 Contents<\/a>\u00c2\u00a0or here: Checkpoint – Insolv LJ Vol 26 No 2 Contents<\/a>.<\/p>\n Click here to access this Part on Westlaw AU<\/a><\/p>\nArticles<\/h3>\n
\n
\n