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.
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
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
Introduction
Two shareholders of KBBO have obtained recognition in the English High Court of their Abu Dhabi bankruptcy process.
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
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
In this week’s TGIF, we examine the recent case of Mandalinic v Stone (Liquidator) [2023] FCAFC 146 which provides useful guidance as to the ability of a director to challenge an insolvent company’s PAYG liability.
Key takeaways
Key Takeaways
In welcome news for insolvency practitioners, the Supreme Court has limited the circumstances in which a dissatisfied bankrupt will have standing to challenge a trustee in bankruptcy's decisions or actions under section 303(1) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (Act), to those where there is likely to be a surplus in the bankruptcy estate (subject to only very limited exceptions). The Supreme Court acknowledged that, while this decision is about bankruptcy, the reasoning will also apply to challenges to liquidators' decisions under section 168(5) of the Act.
In welcome news for insolvency practitioners, the Supreme Court has limited the circumstances in which a dissatisfied bankrupt will have standing to challenge a trustee in bankruptcy's decisions or actions under section 303(1) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (Act), to those where there is likely to be a surplus in the bankruptcy estate (subject to only very limited exceptions). The Supreme Court acknowledged that, while this decision is about bankruptcy, the reasoning will also apply to challenges to liquidators' decisions under section 168(5) of the Act.