Six month extensions to convening periods should not be seen as a fait accompli, particularly if the administrator's application is opposed.

There is a commonly held belief that courts will readily grant an administrator's application for an extension to the convening period. This might have been true once, but it is fast turning into an urban myth, judging by two recent decisions in the Federal Court.

In a judgment handed down on 6 March 2013, the Hong Kong High Court elaborated on the guiding principles the court will follow when determining whether or not it should exercise its 'exorbitant' jurisdiction to wind up an unregistered overseas company 'which prima facie is beyond the limits of territoriality'.

Justice Jacobson's unwillingness to depart from the interests of the majority in relation to Nine Entertainment should give parties confidence that Schemes remain an effective way to effect debt for equity swaps or similar transactions.

In Rubin v Eurofinance SA and New Cap Reinsurance Corporation (in liquidation) and another v AE Grant and others [2012] UKSC 46, the UK Supreme Court held that:  

Key Points:

There are various issues of which a secured creditor must be aware in seeking to either comply with its obligations or take steps to enforce a mortgage under the Act.

Victoria's new Farm Debt Mediation Act 2011 (Vic) commenced operation on 1 December 2011 and is largely modelled on the equivalent New South Wales legislation, the Farm Debt Mediation Act 1994 (NSW).

Key Points:

What the protracted negotiations surrounding Nine Entertainment have demonstrated is the importance of an interested party being able to assert they have an economic interest in the company.

On 17 October 2012, Nine Entertainment announced that it had reached an agreement with representatives of its senior and junior lenders with respect to a restructuring of its financing arrangements. Prior to the announcement, recent business press had been dominated by reports of Nine Entertainment's potential insolvency.

In the recent case of Dwyer & Ors and Davies & Ors v Chicago Boot Co Pty Ltd [2011] SASC 27, Chicago Boot claimed that certain payments made to it by two insolvent companies were not unfair preference payments, because of, amongst other defences, the purported application of a retention of title clause in relation to the supply of goods by Chicago Boot.