*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 33 Part 2) contains the following material:<\/p>\n EDITORIAL<\/a> \u2013 Editor: Dr David Morrison<\/em><\/p>\n The Price of Power: Restraints on Liquidators under s 477(2A) and (2B) of the Corporations Act<\/strong><\/em><\/a> \u2013 Mark Wellard<\/p>\n The restraints on the powers of company liquidators under s 477(2A) and (2B) of the Corporations Act 2001 <\/em>(Cth) have produced a number of challenges in practice. Uncertainty surrounding when the restraints are engaged, anomalous outcomes in their arbitrary application to particular transactions and the significant cost they impose on insolvent liquidations produce what one judge has described as \u201cunfavourable circumstances\u201d for both liquidators and courts. A critical analysis of these fetters on liquidators\u2019 powers informs a debate as to whether Australia should follow the lead of the United Kingdom (in 2015) and repeal these restraints so that liquidators enjoy the same unfettered powers as company administrators.<\/p>\n Addressing Disclosure Issues: Combining Freezing and Search Orders in Liquidation<\/strong><\/em><\/a> \u2013 Aaron Whittenbury and Jessica Wood<\/p>\n In cases where there is a high risk of asset dissipation or evidence destruction by directors, freezing orders under s 1323 of the Corporations Act 2001 <\/em>(Cth) may prove inadequate as they rely on the directors\u2019 compliance to provide complete and accurate disclosure of assets. To address this evidentiary risk, the authors question whether adding a search order provision within s 1323 assists. The section is currently limited to freezing orders which secure assets in liquidation and protect creditors by preventing the dissipation of resources. Ancillary search order provisions might provide a reliable method to preserve evidence and support investigations by allowing applicants to seize documents and assets directly. This article examines the limitations of s 1323 and advocates for the inclusion of an ancillary search order provision. It further discusses how this addition might enhance the section\u2019s effectiveness by addressing financial and evidentiary risks in liquidation proceedings.<\/p>\n RECENT DEVELOPMENTS \u2013 Editor: David Morrison<\/em><\/p>\n INTERNATIONAL NOTES \u2013 Editor: Dr David Morrison<\/em><\/p>\n NEW ZEALAND REPORT \u2013 Editor: Professor Lynne Taylor<\/em><\/p>\n BOOK REVIEWS \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 33 No 2 Contents<\/a> or here: Checkpoint – Insolv LJ Vol 33 No 2 Contents<\/a>.<\/p>\n Click here to access this Part on New Westlaw AU<\/a><\/p>\nArticles<\/h3>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n