In brief
The courts were busy in the second half of 2021 with developments in the space where insolvency law and environmental law overlap.
In Victoria, the Court of Appeal has affirmed the potential for a liquidator to be personally liable, and for there to be a prospective ground to block the disclaimer of contaminated land, where the liquidator has the benefit of a third-party indemnity for environmental exposures.1
In brief
Australia's borders may be closed, but from the start of the pandemic, Australian courts have continued to grapple with insolvency issues from beyond our shores. Recent cases have expanded the recognition of international insolvency processes in Australia, whilst also highlighting that Australia's own insolvency regimes have application internationally.
Key takeaways
In brief
With the courts about to consider a significant and long standing controversy in the law of unfair preferences, suppliers to financially distressed companies, and liquidators, should be aware that there have been recent significant shifts in the law about getting paid in hard times.
“…it is fallacious and unrealistic for the Company to assume that the value of the Haitian Shares remained the same from February to August 2019. Between February and August 2019, Haitian Energy had published no less than nine announcements suggest that the financial condition of Haitian Energy was in a state of flux, and that the value of the Haitian Shares was susceptible to fluctuation.”
– William Wong SC (Deputy High Court Judge in Re Victor River Ltd)
INTRODUCTION
引言
在Re China Huiyuan Group Ltd [2020] HKCFI 2940一案中,原訟法庭拒絕對一家在香港上市的開曼公司進行清盤,因為原訟法庭認為,呈請人未能證明在作出清盤令後,債權人確實有可能獲得實際利益。
案情
SDFIII Holdings Limited(以下簡稱「呈請人」)以資不抵債為由,發出對China Huiyuan Juice Group Limited(以下簡稱「該公司」)進行清盤的呈請。各方對該債務沒有爭議。
該公司在開曼群島註冊成立,並在香港聯交所主板上市。該公司的資產包括在英屬處女群島註冊成立的附屬公司的所有權,該等附屬公司在中國內地擁有附屬公司,而該等附屬公司又擁有該公司的相關資產,並開展生產及其他業務。
對該公司無爭議的是,該公司已資不抵債。該公司要求押後該呈請,以推進該公司的債務重組。由於股份已暫停買賣,而該公司亦面臨潛在的退市問題,該公司認為重組是令集團業務重回正軌的唯一方法,長遠而言,對該公司的債權人是有利的。
因此,法院將裁定是否立即發出清盤令或批准延期。
爭議點
爭議點如下:-
In brief
In brief
Creditors commonly find that their applications to wind up a company are suddenly deferred at the last minute by the appointment of a voluntary administrator. Now, in the early days of the small business restructuring (Part 5.3B) process, the courts are already grappling with those circumstances in the context of that new regime. At the time of writing1, only four restructuring appointments under Part 5.3B have been notified to ASIC. Two of them have been the subject of court proceedings.
The resulting decisions reveal:
Introduction
In Re China Huiyuan Group Ltd [2020] HKCFI 2940, the Court of First Instance declined to wind up a Hong Kong-listed Cayman company as the Court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that there was a real possibility of a tangible benefit to creditors upon the making of a winding up order.
Facts
SDF III Holdings Limited (the “Petitioner”) issued a petition to wind-up China Huiyuan Juice Group Limited (the “Company”) on the grounds of insolvency. The debt is not disputed.
In brief
The new small business insolvency reforms enacted by the Corporations Amendment (Corporate Insolvency Reforms) Act 2020 (Cth) (Corporations Amendment Act) - which inserts a new Part 5.3B into the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act) - are due to come into effect on 1 January 2021.
In brief
The new small business insolvency reforms enacted by the Corporations Amendment (Corporate Insolvency Reforms) Act 2020 (Corporations Amendment Act) - which inserts a new Part 5.3B into the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act) - are due to come into effect on 1 January 2021.