The Honourable Mr Justice Harris, the incumbent Companies Judge, has continued the recent development of cross-border assistance in insolvency matters. An example is his Lordship's decision in Re Centaur Litigation SPC (In Liquidation)(HCMP 3389/2015, 10 March 2016), which relates to an application by the liquidators of three companies incorporated and being wound up in the Cayman Islands.
You may recognise the quote in the title from the film "Ron Burgundy – Anchorman" about our favourite newsreader from San Diego in the 80's. Of course he was talking about a street fight with news teams from other San Diego stations but could just as easily been talking about the seemingly sudden financial demise of the Hanjin shipping line.
A problem often faced by creditors is how to recover unsecured judgment debts. If a debtor owns real property, there is a mechanism available through the Courts to have the debt registered against the property and the sheriff's office sell the property to satisfy the judgment debt.
A key factor contributing to the vitality and development of the common law is that judges can have the benefit of authorities from other jurisdictions with a comparable legal framework. This has proved and will be increasingly important in areas such as cross-border insolvency, where modified universalism has been thecatchword in recent years.
Did you know that a scheme of arrangement can be used to reduce the creditor constituency in a liquidation, so that time and costs can be saved for the benefit of all parties?
The Honourable Mr. Justice Ng of the Hong Kong High Court made an Order sanctioning a scheme of arrangement (Scheme) proposed by the Joint and Several Liquidators (Liquidators) of Lehman Brothers Asia Holdings Limited (LBAH) to be implemented between LBAH and certain of its unsecured creditors (Scheme Creditors).
Thailand's amended Bankruptcy Act (No. 9) B.E. 2559 (2016) (the "Amendment") was published in the Royal Thai Government Gazette on 24 May 2016 and came into force on 25 May 2016. The Amendment is specifically aimed at small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). It introduces a new scheme which allows SMEs to enter into Court-supervised business rehabilitations.
On 1 June 2016 the Victorian Court of Appeal delivered its judgment in Timbercorp Finance Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) (Timbercorp) v Collins (Collins) and Tomes (Tomes) [2016] VSCA 128, the latest in a string of Timbercorp cases.
The latest decision was preceded by a class action which went all the way to the High Court in which the investors lost their claim against Timbercorp for misleading representations.
By its much anticipated yet hardly surprising judgment in Forge Group Power Pty Limited (in liquidation)(receivers and managers appointed) v General Electric International Inc [2016] NSWSC 52, the Supreme Court of New South Wales has again shone a bright light on the importance of perfection of security interests under the PPSA, and the dramatic consequences that follow for failing to do so by reason of the PPSA vesting rules. Indeed, the failure to register in this case has had multi-million dollar consequences.
The decision in Adhesive Pro Pty Ltd v Blackrock Supplies Pty Ltd [2015] ACTSC 288 reinforces the strict rule that an application to set aside a statutory demand must be filed and served within 21 days of receiving the demand.
Statutory demands are a common and useful tool for many unsecured creditors seeking payment of a debt. Non-compliance with a statutory demand results in a presumption of insolvency and the possibility that a creditor can apply to wind up a company debtor.
Did you know that when a liquidator makes a court application, it is important to identify the appropriate applicant, not only as a procedural matter, but also from a costs perspective?
All good where the liquidator succeeds in the court application