The Supreme Court of New South Wales has recently handed down its decision in proceedings (“Arrium Proceedings”) brought by a number of lenders against former officers and employees of Arrium Limited and its subsidiaries (“Arrium”).

Introduction

Justice Ball’s landmark decision¹ dismissing the lenders’ claims addressed various important issues that often arise when a borrower is facing financial distress in Australia, including:

The Australian Government has introduced new laws which are intended to avoid unnecessary corporate insolvencies in light of the challenges presented by the unfolding COVID-19 global pandemic. The new laws came into effect on 25 March 2020 and include:

In July 2017, we wrote about the case of Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd v Forge Group Power Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (receivers and managers appointed)[1], in which the Western Australian Supreme Court held that rights of set off enjoyed by an insolvent company’s contractual counterparties would not apply if the company had granted a security interest over the relevant contractual righ

In our previous blog post, we examined the decision of the New South Wales Court of Appeal to uphold the composition of classes of creditors in the Boart Longyear restructuring by way of scheme of arrangement.

In the recent case of Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd v Forge Group Power Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (receivers and managers appointed)[1], the Western Australian Supreme Court has confirmed that the grant of a security interest under the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (PPSA) by a company to a third party will likely render any rights of set-off enjoyed by the company’s contractual counterparties worthless where the company subs

In one of the most significant decisions relating to schemes of arrangement in Australia in recent years, the New South Wales Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal challenging the composition of classes of creditors in the Boart Longyear restructuring.

On Wednesday, the Court of Final Appeal ("CFA") reversed the lower courts' decision in the Yung Kee case¹ , holding that the Hong Kong court has jurisdiction to order the winding up of Yung Kee Holdings Limited (the "Company"), a holding company incorporated in the British Virgin Islands and not registered in Hong Kong.

In 2014, the law of privilege was considered from various angles, with the year closing on a Court  of Final Appeal decision emphasising the primacy of legal professional privilege ("LPP") as an  absolute right guaranteed by the Basic Law of Hong Kong.

While the cases outlined below generally provide comfort that the law of privilege in Hong Kong  holds strong, we offer a few practical points to help safeguard the privilege of legal advice:

The Court of Appeal has declined jurisdiction to wind up Yung Kee Holdings Limited (the "Company"), a company incorporated in the British Virgin Islands ("BVI"), upholding the decision of Harris J at first instance that the Company did not have "sufficient connection" with Hong Kong.