The Federal Court in Brereton, in the matter of ICT Century Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) [2025] FCA 107 granted the liquidators of ICT Century Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (ICT) a one-year ‘shelf order’, or an extension of time to bring voidable transaction claims under section 588FF(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

In a recent ruling (NMC Health PLC (in Administration) v Ernst & Young LLP [2024] EWHC 2905 (Comm)), the High Court declined to order disclosure of witness statements and transcripts of interviews conducted by administrators during their initial investigations, citing litigation privilege.

Litigation privilege

The Federal Court of Australia has recently delivered judgment in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v ACN 152 259 839 Pty Ltd [2024] FCA 1489. The Court held that in some circumstances, a statutory demand can be validly served on a perceived temporarily empty company office.

On 20 May 2024, an ATO officer purported to serve ACN 152 259 839 Pty Ltd (the Company) with a statutory demand and an accompanying affidavit by leaving the documents at the Company’s registered office.

The Federal Court in Hema Maps Pty Ltd v HemaX Digital Pty Ltd, in the matter of HemaX Digital Pty Ltd [2024] FCA 1127, appointed a provisional liquidator to preserve the status quo until the determination of a winding up application. This winding up application was due to a deadlock and an irreparable breakdown in relations between shareholders, and mismanagement of the company.

Key Takeaways

When a company is in financial distress, directors face difficult choices. Should they trade on to try to “trade out” of the company’s financial difficulties or should they file for insolvency? If they act too soon, will creditors complain that they should have done more to save the business? A recent English High Court case raises the prospect of directors potentially being held to account for decisions that “merely postpone the inevitable.”

In March 2015 the major high street retailer British Home Stores (BHS) was acquired for £1 by Retail Acquisitions Limited (RAL), a company owned by Mr Dominic Chappell. Mr Chappell became a director of the BHS entities upon completion of the purchase, together with three other individuals.

What happens to a company at the end of an administration is a question that probably only keeps insolvency anoraks up at night.

There are a limited number of potential options, with the rescue of the company as a going concern being the number one objective to which all administrators aspire. However, more often than not, an administration will end with the company entering liquidation or, where the company has no property to permit a distribution to creditors, the dissolution of the company.

A Hong Kong court has refused to sanction a scheme of arrangement, saying that practitioners should explain the key terms and effect of any proposed restructuring in a way which can be easily understood by the creditors and the court.

In Re Sino Oiland Gas Holdings Ltd [2024] HKCFI 1135, the Honourable Madam Justice Linda Chan refused to sanction a scheme of arrangement, saying that creditors had been given insufficient information about the restructuring and the scheme that would enable them to make an informed decision at the scheme meeting.

While franchising has typically been a more robust business model than others, it remains susceptible to broader economic and sectoral pressures, as The Body Shop’s recent entry into administration demonstrates.

In the unfortunate event that a franchisor or franchisee becomes insolvent, disruption is inevitable. However, insolvency doesn’t necessarily spell a terminal outcome. In this article we consider some of the key considerations for both franchisors and franchisees.

Handling franchisee insolvency: the franchisor’s approach

The Hong Kong Court of Appeal has finally laid to rest the vexed issue of whether an arbitration agreement or a winding-up petition should take precedence in an insolvency situation. In two parallel decisions, the Court of Appeal ruled that an arbitration agreement should be treated in the same way as an exclusive jurisdiction clause and that the principle should be given a wide interpretation.