引言

在当今国际国内供应链债务违约增多的背景下，作为供应链体系中重要支付手段的票据违约也不断集中爆发。当票据违约遭遇票据当事人破产，持票人追偿票据债权将更为困难和复杂。本文主要探讨不同破产情形下持票人行权的策略，以及破产重整计划对持票人行使追索权的可能影响，望对供应链行业交易合规和纠纷解决有所启发。

一、承兑人或出票人破产情形下，持票人追偿票据债权的策略选择

以往银行汇票较少出现承兑人（或付款人）破产的情形，多为出票人破产，但近些年如包商银行破产、以及大型企业集团破产带来的其集团财务公司破产，使得银行汇票中承兑人破产也成为了现实问题。就商业汇票而言，出票人与付款人/承兑人可能为同一主体，也可能为不同主体，均有可能陷入破产困境。在不同情形下持票人追偿债权的可能策略，值得探讨。

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

This week’s TGIF examines a recent decision of the New South Wales Court of Appeal in Hosking v Extend N Build Pty Limited [2018] NSWCA 149, which considered whether payments made by a third party to an insolvent company’s creditors could be recovered by the liquidator as unfair preferences.

What happened?