Communicating with Scheme Creditors: Beware of Zealous Advocacy
A-Cap Energy Limited [2023] FCA 1356 ("A-Cap") and Symbio Holdings Limited [2024] FCA 40 ("Symbio")
The main communication with scheme creditors is the explanatory statement approved at the first court hearing.
However, there can be other communications which are proposed to be sent to creditors.
In the case of other communications which are known at the time of the first hearing, they can include:
DoCA’s: Discriminating between Creditors -Is it for a Proper Purpose
Canstruct Pty Limited v Project Sea Dragon Pty Limited (No. 4) [2024] FCA 112 ("Canstruct")
Limiting Liability of Administrators for Employee Wages
Walley IMO PGP Group (Aust) Pty Ltd [2023] FCA 1554 ("PGP Group") and Crosbie IMO Godfreys Group Pty Ltd [2024] FCA 60 ("Godfreys")
Voluntary administrators have been able to seek orders releasing them from their personal liability for debts incurred by them in the course of conducting a company's business. That relief has been available where it has been necessary to support the continuing operation of that business.
Lenders Beware: Security Vulnerable as an unreasonable director-related transaction
Cooper as Liquidator of Runtong Investment and Development Pty Limited) v CEG Director Securities Pty Limited [2024] FCA 6. ("CEG")
Fiduciary Duties of Receivers
Receivers appointed to enforce a security owe their fiduciary duties to their appointor and not to the mortgagor. So, when realising the assets of the mortgagor, the receivers can focus their attention on pursuing that course of action which, as they judge it, is best calculated to optimise the position of their appointor; Salmon v Albarran [2023] NSWSC 1238 ("Salmon").
In FamilyMart China Holding Co Ltd (Respondent) v Ting Chuan (Cayman Islands) Holding Corporation (Appellant) (Cayman Islands) [2023] UKPC 33, the Privy Council has provided useful guidance about the interplay between an arbitration agreement and exercise of the Cayman court’s powers and discretion to wind up a company on just and equitable grounds.
This article considers the New South Wales Supreme Court’s decision to grant leave to proceed against non-appearing foreign defendants, which were in foreign insolvency proceedings.
There has been a significant growth of litigation in Australia where there is at least one foreign defendant. This is unsurprising given the growing number of international agreements under which the parties govern their contract under Australian law and expressly agree to Australian court jurisdiction, and the volume of global trade with Australia and foreign direct investment.
Understanding whether a company is insolvent, and the date of insolvency, is essential for directors and accountants who advise companies, as well as liquidators and other parties bringing insolvency-based claims. In understanding these issues, the analysis may need to go beyond establishing present-day liquidity – for example, what impact do long term-debts have on a company’s solvency and how are they used to prove insolvency? Which debts are relevant to the cashflow test? Whether a company is ‘able to pay all its debts’ as and when they become ‘due and payable’?
On 8 February 2023, the High Court of Australia (being Australia’s highest court) simultaneously handed down two highly anticipated insolvency law decisions:
In the recent case of LMN v Bitflyer Holdings Inc & Ors [2022] EWHC 2954, the High Court of England and Wales made orders directed at a number of cryptocurrency exchanges requiring them to provide information in relation to misappropriated crypto assets.