Terminating DoCA's (Part 3) – Administrators' Casting Vote
Commissioner of State Revenue v McCabe (No. 2) [2024] FCA 662 ("McCabe")
IMO Academy Construction & Development Pty Limited [2024] NSWSC 808 ("Academy Construction")
Summary
Where there is a deadlock between the majority in value of creditors and those creditors with a majority in number on the vote for a DoCA, the administrator has a casting vote.
Terminating DoCA's (Part 2) – Unfair Prejudice or Injustice
Canstruct Pty Limited v Project Sea Dragon Pty Limited (No. 4) [2024] FCA 112 ("Canstruct")1
Commissioner of State Revenue v McCabe (No. 2) [2024] FCA 662 ("McCabe")
Academy Construction & Development Pty Limited [2024] NSWSC 808 ("Academy Construction")
Deeds of Company Arrangement – Insured Claims
Destination Brisbane Consortium Integrated Resort Operations Pty Ltd as Trustee v PCA (Qld) Pty Ltd (subject to a Deed of Company Arrangement) [2024] QSC 178 ("Destination Brisbane")
In Destination Brisbane two questions, which concerned the entitlements of insured creditors under a DoCA, arose for consideration in the context of an application for judicial advice:
If a debt arises from a contract that contains an exclusive jurisdiction clause (EJC) in favour of a foreign court, how will the Hong Kong court deal with a bankruptcy petition based on that debt? A highly anticipated judgment from Hong Kong’s highest court suggests that the bankruptcy petition will likely be dismissed, and that the foreign EJC will be given effect. But, as we will discuss below, the Court seems to leave other possibilities open, depending on the facts in a particular case.
A recent Hong Kong Court of Appeal decision examined a creditor’s right to commence bankruptcy/insolvency proceedings where the petition debt arises from an agreement containing an exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of a foreign court: Guy Kwok-Hung Lam v Tor Asia Credit Master Fund LP [2022] HKCA 1297.
Historically, the Hong Kong courts have generally recognised foreign insolvency proceedings commenced in the jurisdiction in which the company is incorporated. This may no longer be the case in Hong Kong following the recent decision of Provisional Liquidator of Global Brands Group Holding Ltd v Computershare Hong Kong Trustees Ltd [2022] HKCFI 1789 (Global Brands).
Historically, the common law has only recognised foreign insolvency proceedings commenced in the jurisdiction in which the company is incorporated. This may no longer be the case in Hong Kong. Going forward, a Hong Kong court will now recognise foreign insolvency proceedings in the jurisdiction of the company’s “centre of main interests” (COMI). Indeed, it will not be sufficient, nor will it be necessary, that the foreign insolvency process is conducted in a company’s place of incorporation.
On 6 June 2022, Mr Justice Harris sanctioned a Hong Kong scheme of arrangement for Rare Earth Magnesium Technology Group (the Company) in re Rare Earth Magnesium Technology Limited [2022] HKFCI 1686 (Rare Earth).
We previously wrote about the Court’s attitude to liquidators’ applications for directions on matters arising in a compulsory winding up (i.e., by the court) under section 200 of the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance, Cap.
In Re Grand Peace Group Holdings Limited [2021] HKCFI 2361, the Hong Kong Court refused to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to wind up an offshore holding company due to difficulties in the recognition of Hong Kong liquidators in the BVI.
Background