企业出现债务危机时，通常首选通过续贷、增益担保、延期支付等各种方式进行化解，避免债务危机扩散影响自身经营和市场竞争力。庭外债务重组往往是在企业通过诸多努力仍难以遏制危机蔓延时才会提出。启动庭外债务重组时，绝大多数债务人已无法全额清偿到期债务，同时还可能存在多项诉讼或仲裁、银行账户被冻结甚至资产被司法处置等不利情形。在此情况下，债权人很难相信债务人仅凭自身架构调整或经营方案优化可以摆脱债务危机，其更希望看到有投资人参与到重组中，为其债权回收提供更多可能性；债务人亦需要引入投资人为其提供资金、业务等全方位的支持，并以此为基础与债权人协商解决债务问题。因此，在庭外债务重组中引入投资人是债权人和债务人的共识。庭外债务重组实践中，鲜少出现没有投资人参与而由债务人与债权人自行完成重组的案例。
一、投资人的类型
On 31 October 2023, Federal Law No. 51 of 2023 Promulgating the Financial and Bankruptcy Law (the Bankruptcy Law) was published in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) Official Gazette, repealing the prior federal law on bankruptcy (Federal Law No. 9 of 2016, the Prior Law) and significantly developing the bankruptcy regime in the UAE.
This week’s TGIF takes a look at the recent case of Mills Oakley (a partnership) v Asset HQ Australia Pty Ltd [2019] VSC 98, where the Supreme Court of Victoria found the statutory presumption of insolvency did not arise as there had not been effective service of a statutory demand due to a typographical error in the postal address.
What happened?
This week’s TGIF examines a decision of the Victorian Supreme Court which found that several proofs had been wrongly admitted or rejected, and had correct decisions been made, the company would not have been put into liquidation.
BACKGROUND
This week’s TGIF considers Re Broens Pty Limited (in liq) [2018] NSWSC 1747, in which a liquidator was held to be justified in making distributions to creditors in spite of several claims by employees for long service leave entitlements.
What happened?
On 19 December 2016, voluntary administrators were appointed to Broens Pty Limited (the Company). The Company supplied machinery & services to manufacturers in aerospace, rail, defence and mining industries.
This week’s TGIF considers the recent case of Vanguard v Modena [2018] FCA 1461, where the Court ordered a non-party director to pay indemnity costs due to his conduct in opposing winding-up proceedings against his company.
Background
Vanguard served a statutory demand on Modena on 27 September 2017 seeking payment of outstanding “commitment fees” totalling $138,000 which Modena was obliged, but had failed, to repay.
The recent decision of the Court of Appeal of Western Australia, Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd v Forge Group Power Pty Ltd (in Liquidation) (Receivers and Managers Appointed) [2018] WASCA 163 provides much needed clarity around the law of set-off. The decision will no doubt help creditors sleep well at night, knowing that when contracting with counterparties that later become insolvent they will not lose their set-off rights for a lack of mutuality where the counterparty has granted security over its assets.
This week’s TGIF considers the decision in Mujkic Family Company Pty Ltd v Clarke & Gee Pty Ltd [2018] TASFC 4, which concerns a rather novel issue – whether a solicitor acting for a shareholder might also owe a duty of care to the company in liquidation.
What happened?
In 2015, the Supreme Court of Queensland ordered that the corporate trustee of a family trust be wound up.
This week’s TGIF considers the process that a liquidator may follow when a director fails to attend at an examination. It considers the appeal in Mensink v Parbery [2018] FCAFC 101, in which the Court set out the relevant differences between arrest warrants issued to require a director to attend an examination, and arrest warrants to answer charges for contempt.
What happened?
How far do liquidators’ powers to demand documents for public examinations extend? Which documents can they request and from whom can they request them?
In this week’s TGIF, we consider these questions in the context of the recent case of Re Cathro [2018] FCA 1138.
BACKGROUND