Summary

This decision is a testament to the flexibility of schemes of arrangement in Australia as a means of effecting settlements with a company’s creditors as well as third parties such as the company’s insurers. The Federal Court also demonstrated its propensity to take a liberal interpretation of what constitutes a “compromise or arrangement” to enliven its jurisdiction to convene a meeting of creditors for the purpose of considering a proposed scheme of arrangement.

The Federal Court of Australia case of Yu v STX Pan Ocean Co Ltd (South Korea), in the matter of STX Pan Ocean Co Ltd (receivers appointed in South Korea) [2013] FCA 680 addressed the issue of whether a ship can be arrested in Australia where the owner is subject to insolvency proceedings in another country.

Facts

The recent Federal Court of Australia (the Federal Court) decision of Ackers v Saad Investments Company Limited [2013] FCA 738 considered whether the Australian Commissioner of Taxation (the Commissioner) could collect part of an AUD $83,271,545.70 debt owed by Saad Investments Company Limited (in official liquidation) (Saad) from Saad’s Australian assets, before those assets were remitted to the Cayman Islands for distribution in Saad’s ‘foreign main proceeding’.

Facts

Voluntary administrators frequently obtain Court orders permitting notices to be issued to creditors electronically. Such orders are made under section 447A of the Corporations Act (the Act) on grounds of efficiency, cost and necessity. See Mothercare Australia Ltd (Administrators Appointed) [2013] NSWSC 263 and Creative Memories Australia Pty Ltd [2013] NSWSC 1294.

In two recent Federal Court decisions, Chan v Four C Realty Pty Ltd (in liq), in the matter of Four C Realty Pty Ltd (in liq)[2013] FCA 928 and Chan v Four C Realty Pty Ltd (in liq), in the matter of Four C Realty Pty Ltd (in liq) (No 2)[2013] FCA 959, the Court considered the circumstances in which it will or will not interfere with the commercial judgment of a liquidator.

Wentworth Metals Group Pty Ltd (Wentworth) applied under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act), for a review by the Federal Court of Australia of a decision by the liquidators of Bonython Metals Group Pty Ltd to sell Bonython's interest in a joint venture mining project to Pure Metals Pty Ltd. 

You are a judgment creditor with a charge over the judgment debtor’s assets and have lodged a caveat over a property owned by judgment debtor. You finally receive word from the judgment debtor that the property has been sold and you are asked to provide a withdrawal of caveat. You agree, subject to being paid the judgment debt at settlement in exchange for the withdrawal. Your request is followed by silence, and then a lapsing notice is served upon you. Your caveat will lapse unless you go to the expense of Supreme Court proceedings to extend the life of your caveat.

In the decision of Allied Express Transport Pty Ltd v Exalt Group Pty Ltd (Administrator Appointed) (No 2) [2013] FCA 477, Exalt Group Pty Ltd (Exalt) sought an adjournment of a winding up application under s440A(2) of the Corporations Act on the basis that the creditors had voted by a majority in favour of a resolution that Exalt enter into a DOCA.

On August 27, 2013, in a case of first impression, the Third Circuit rejected an attack on a foreign liquidator’s petition for recognition of an Australian insolvency proceeding under Chapter 15 of the US Bankruptcy Code premised on the argument that the foreign proceeding violated US public policy.