In Bechara v Bates,^[1] the Full Federal Court reminds us of the proper procedure for review of a sequestration order made by a registrar. This case raises an important point about bankruptcy practice and procedure in the Federal Circuit Court and the Federal Court.

In Ross, in the matter of Print Mail Logistics (International) Pty Ltd (in liq) v Elias,^[1] the Federal Court considered the extent to which a Jones v Dunkel^[2] inference can be made.

On 12 May 2021, Mr Justice Snowden sanctioned Virgin Active’s three inter-conditional restructuring plans under Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006. The case has been followed with significant interest in the restructuring community because the restructuring plans included the most extensive cross-class cram down proposal since the introduction of the restructuring plan process last year (DeepOcean and Smile Telecoms are the only other restructuring plans to utilise the cram-down mechanism).

The government has introduced the Debt Respite Scheme (Breathing Space), which came into effect on 4 May 2021, which allows individuals who are struggling with debt to apply for a “breathing space” in which to sort out their finances.  This scheme, which was introduced in response to the unprecedented impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, includes residential tenants who are in arrears of rent.

What is a breathing space?

There are two types of breathing space:-

Hong Kong and the Mainland have agreed a new co-operation mechanism for cross-border insolvency. Under the agreement, liquidators from Hong Kong may apply to Mainland courts for recognition of insolvency proceedings in Hong Kong, whilst bankruptcy administrators from the Mainland can apply to the Hong Kong High Court for recognition of bankruptcy proceedings in the Mainland.

Hong Kong and the Mainland have agreed a new co-operation mechanism for cross-border insolvency.

In ACN 004 410 833 Ltd (formerly Arrium Limited) (in liq) v Michael Thomas Walton & anor,^[1] the New South Wales Court of Appeal considered the purpose for which public examination summons and production of documents can be ordered.

In Re Octaviar Ltd,^[1] the Supreme Court of Queensland has given a recent example of a settlement considered too ‘good’ to approve, even while noting its failure to achieve perfection.

In Re Cullen Group,[1] the Supreme Court of Queensland considered the determination of a preliminary question regarding the insolvency of Cullen Group Australia Pty Ltd (Cullen Group), which was placed into liquidation approximately four years prior to the hearing date.

In Krejci, in the matter of Union Standard International Group Pty Ltd,[1] the Federal Court provides an example of the ways in which section 90-15 of the Insolvency Practice Schedule

On 1 January 2021, a number of changes to Australia’s insolvency framework came into effect, pursuant to the Corporations Amendment (Corporate Insolvency Reforms) Act 2020 (Cth) (the Act).