*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 9171 7100 (international customers) during business hours (Mon-Fri, 8am-6pm AST).<\/p>\n
The latest issue of the Insolvency Law Journal<\/em> (Volume 32 Part 3) contains the following material:<\/p>\n EDITORIAL<\/a> \u2013 Editor: Dr David Morrison <\/em><\/p>\n The Adjudication of Proofs of Debt in Liquidation: Duties and Obligations<\/strong><\/em><\/a> \u2013 Nikita Angelakis<\/p>\n The High Court has held that when adjudicating proofs of debt, a liquidator acts quasi-judicially \u201caccording to the standards no less than the standards of a court or judge\u201d. Previous articles in this series examined whether the liquidator\u2019s power to adjudicate is an exercise of judicial power, by looking at the effect of an adjudication, and the historical course by which the power was conferred on the liquidator. It was concluded that a liquidator makes an administrative decision. This article examines whether the characterisation has an impact on decision-making obligations of a liquidator, including whether orthodox judicial review is available in respect of a liquidator\u2019s adjudications, and the extent of a liquidator\u2019s obligation to accord procedural fairness. It will be argued that the High Court set the bar too high for the liquidator, and all the liquidator must do is act \u201creasonably\u201d when carrying out of their adjudications.<\/p>\n Third-Party Release in Schemes of Arrangement: Debating the Preferable Jurisdictional Test<\/strong><\/em><\/a> \u2013 Charles Zhen Qu<\/p>\n This article assesses two judge-made tests, namely, the necessity test and the sufficient nexus test, on the court\u2019s jurisdiction to sanction creditors\u2019 schemes of arrangement (“the scheme”) involving a release of third-party liabilities. The scheme is a court-controlled statutory procedure enabling a company to restructure its relationship with shareholders or creditors. The success of a scheme often requires rightsholders to release their claims against both the company and third parties. The legislation is silent on the court\u2019s jurisdiction to sanction the type of schemes just mentioned. To close this gap, courts have developed tests mentioned above. The courts, in a number of recent cases, expressed a preference to the nexus test with insufficient explanation on their reasonings. This article evaluates the tests according to their doctrinal pedigrees, replicability, and ability to maximise the flexibility of the scheme. It concludes that the sufficient nexus test is preferable by all three standards.<\/p>\n RECENT DEVELOPMENTS \u2013 Editor: Dr David Morrison<\/em><\/p>\n INTERNATIONAL NOTES \u2013 Editor: Dr David Morrison<\/em><\/p>\n BOOK REVIEW \u2013 Editor: Dr David Morrison<\/em><\/p>\n For the PDF version of the table of contents, click here: New Westlaw Australia – Insolv LJ Vol 32 No 3 Contents<\/a> or here: Checkpoint – Insolv LJ Vol 32 No 3 Contents<\/a>.<\/p>\n Click here to access this Part on New Westlaw AU<\/a><\/p>\nArticles<\/strong><\/h3>\n
\n
\n
\n