In Re Southwest Pacific Bauxite (HK) Ltd [2018] 2 HKLRD 449, the Honourable Mr Justice Harris held that a petition to wind up a company on the ground of insolvency should “generally be dismissed” where:
(a) | a company disputes the debt relied on by the petitioner; |
(b) | the contract under which the debt is alleged to arise contains an arbitration clause that governs any dispute relating to the debt; and |
(c) |
How should the liquidator of an insolvent trustee company ensure payment out of trust assets of the entirety of his or her remuneration and expenses?
In its much anticipated decision, the High Court has unanimously dismissed the Amerind appeal.[1] This decision finally resolves recent uncertainty as to the proper application of trust assets in the liquidation of an insolvent corporate trustee.
In short, the High Court’s decision confirms that in the winding up of a corporate trustee:
In recent years, the Hong Kong courts have been required to deal with a significant number of cases concerning cross border insolvency. Most notably, a number of cases have arisen where insolvency practitioners appointed by overseas courts seek recognition of their authority to act on behalf of overseas companies placed in liquidation or a similar insolvency regime, and to seek authority to use powers equivalent to those granted to liquidators by the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance (Cap.
The significance of this decision
On 3 May 2019, the Federal Court of Australia dismissed an application brought by the administrators of an oil and gas exploration company, Paltar Petroleum Limited (Paltar) to adjourn proceedings for the winding-up of the company in insolvency. The decision illustrates that the belated appointment of administrators appointed by directors in response to pending winding-up proceedings is unlikely to keep at bay the approaching fire of liquidation; indeed, it may accelerate it.
Background
The NSW Supreme Court has reaffirmed the criteria for a Court to inquire into a liquidator’s conduct. It is necessary to show that there is at least a ‘well-based suspicion’ indicating a need for further investigation. ‘Mere wondering’ is not enough.
In exercising its discretion, a Court will also consider the nature and gravity of the allegations against the liquidator, delays in seeking an inquiry, the utility of an inquiry and the existence of alternative remedies.
Background
The recent sale of Black Oak Minerals Limited (Black Oak) to Ramelius Resources Limited (ASX: RMS) (Ramelius) shows that section 444GA of theCorporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the Act) can be used to resurrect a company in liquidation.
The Commissioner of Taxation (Commissioner) recently issued draft taxation determination TD 2019/D2 (TD 2019/D2) dealing with the important question of a receiver’s obligation to retain money for post-appointment tax liabilities. A link to TD2019/D2.
The Personal Property Securities Register (PPSR) commenced operation on 30 January 2012. All seven-year registrations made on the:
- old state-based motor vehicle registers, immediately before the PPSR commenced; or
- PPSR immediately after it commenced,
will begin to expire shortly and this will have adverse consequences for secured parties who do not act to renew.
In Re Kin Ming Toy Manufactory Ltd (in liquidation), HCCW 402/2015 [2018] HKCFI 2057 and 2285, Harris J of the Court of First Instance dismissed an application under section 182 of the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance (the Ordinance), Cap. 32, brought by the liquidators of a company in liquidation seeking to void two payments made out of the company’s bank account after commencement of the winding up proceedings, and further ordered that the liquidators be held personally liable for the costs of the unsuccessful application.
Key Facts