IE CA 3 Holdings Ltd and IE CA 4 Holdings Ltd (Companies) were two Canadian registered companies whose directors were located outside of Canada. The Companies’ parent company, Iris Energy Limited (Iris), was listed on NASDAQ and had its registered office in Melbourne and principal place of business in Sydney, with three of its six directors located in New South Wales.

Two recent Supreme Court of Canada decisions demonstrate that the corporate attribution doctrine is not a one-size-fits-all approach.

In Morgan v McMillan Investment Holdings Pty Ltd [2024] HCA 33, the High Court had to consider whether a right to sue held by companies in liquidation could provide the required gateway for a pooling order under s 579E(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

Key Takeaways

Introduction

On 9 May 2024, the Oireachtas enacted the Employment (Collective Redundancies and Miscellaneous Provisions) and Companies (Amendment) Act 2024 (“the Act”). Part 4 of this Act amends certain provisions of the 2014 Companies Act.

Notification Obligations

The Act inserts new subsections under sections 571, 573, and 594 of the Act of 2014 for the notification of relevant parties. This means that:

In In the matter of Academy Construction & Development Pty Ltd (subject to Deed of Company Arrangement) [2024] NSWSC 808, the New South Wales Supreme Court had to determine whether to terminate a Deed of Company Arrangement (DOCA) on the basis that it was oppressive, unfairly prejudicial or discriminatory.

Key Takeaways

The Supreme Court of Western Australia has recently delivered judgment in the case of Kitay v Frigger [No 2] [2024] WASC 113. The Court held that some, but not all, long-term costs agreements and retainers entered into by a liquidator required court approval.

Key Takeaways

The Federal Court has recently delivered judgment in the case of Cooper as Liquidator of Runtong Investment and Development Pty Ltd (In Liq)v CEG Direct Securities Pty Ltd [2024] FCA 6, a case where a liquidator was successful in having a mortgage declared as an unreasonable director-related transaction.

Key Takeaways

Court approval of a sale process in receivership or Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”) proposal proceedings is generally a procedural order and objectors do not have an appeal as of right; they must seek leave and meet a high test in order obtain it. However, in Peakhill Capital Inc. v.

On 30 November the Supreme Court delivered its written judgment dealing with the correct test for insolvency when considering the eligibility of a debtor for a Personal Insolvency Arrangement (PIA) under the Personal Insolvency Act 2012 (as amended).

Background

One of the qualifying criteria for a PIA is that the debtor must demonstrate that the debtor is “insolvent” within the meaning of section 2(1) of the Personal Insolvency Act 2012. That provision defines the term as meaning “that the debtor is unable to pay his or her debts in full as they fall due”.

In this week’s TGIF, we examine the recent case of Re Eliana Construction and Developing Group Pty Ltd [2023] VSC 639 which considers guarantor subrogation rights in insolvency scenarios.

Key takeaways