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

The German Federal Court of Justice (the Federal Court) has considered whether a so-called "weak" preliminary insolvency administrator, entrusted to continue business operations with the management during the preliminary proceeding, may take actions in the interest of these operations, where it is unclear whether the debtor has discontinued the business.

Background

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

According to the German Federal Court of Justice (the Court), a “related party” (nahestehende Person) within the meaning of German insolvency law includes in the case of a legal entity, an indirect shareholder, provided that it holds more than 25% of the shares. Here, the Court will assume that the legal entity has advance knowledge of the financial situation of its subsidiary.

Background

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.

In a recent case before the Federal Court of Justice, an insolvency administrator was found to have neglected his duties of investigation in a particularly serious and reproachable manner.

Decision

The insolvency administrator had contested the offsetting of an investment subsidy by the creditor bank to balance the debtor’s accounts.

The focus of the decision was whether the insolvency administrator had made the contestation claim within the statutory limitation period. In Germany, this is usually three years and starts: