Introduction

Welcome to the 3rd edition of Going Concerns where we strive to bring you the latest updates on restructuring and insolvency law. In this issue, we provide:

1. An update on the extent of financial disclosure that may be ordered against a company undergoing a scheme moratorium under s. 211B(6) of the Singapore Companies Act (Cap. 50);

2. A further commentary on the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Bill; 3. A commentary on the Singapore recognition process of foreign bankruptcies;

In Carrello,^[1] the Federal Court granted a warrant under section 530C of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the Act) allowing the liquidator of Drilling Australia Pty Ltd (the Company) to search and seize property, books and records located in storage containers belonging to the Company.

How the recent changes will impact restructurings of listed companies

The Federal Court has considered whether a deed of company arrangement (DoCA) binds a regulator. The case involved an application by the Fair Work Ombudsman (FWO) for leave to proceed against a company in liquidation. The Court rejected the company’s argument that the FWO’s claims were extinguished by the DoCA and granted the FWO leave to pursue the claim. The outcome of the proceedings may impact the types of, and circumstances in which, claims by a regulator will not be extinguished by a DoCA.

In a decision of the Federal Court handed down on 18 October 2019 in Masters v Lombe (Liquidator); In the Matter of Babcock & Brown Limited (In Liquidation) [2019] FCA 1720, Foster J held that Babcock & Brown Limited (BBL) did not breach the continuous disclosure obligations in the Corporations Act 2001 and the ASX Listing Rules.

In Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB v Conway & another [2019] UKPC 36, the Privy Council upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal of the Cayman Islands that the appellant bank, SEB, was required to repay redemption payments held to be preferences notwithstanding that it had received the funds in the capacity of nominee, and had already distributed the funds to the beneficiaries without any ability to recover them.

Facts

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?

Hsin Chong Construction Company Limited [2019] 原诉法庭 1531 (判决日期2019年6月13日)

合资企业协议通常会包含如下条款：在发生特定事件（包括违约方破产）时，赋予无过错方将违约方排除在合资企业之外的权利。本案中，法庭对该类条款是否无效进行了考虑。

背景介绍

2013年11月，Hsin Chong Construction Company Limited (以下简称“该公司”)与Build King Construction Limited （以下简称“Build King”）签订了一份合资企业协议（“合资企业协议”）并成立了一家非法人型合资企业（“合资企业”），目的是向香港一个政府建设项目（“该项目”）提交投标。该公司和Build King在合资企业中持有的权益分别为65%和35%。香港政府于2016年6月22日将该合同授予给了该合资企业。

该公司于2017年陷入财务困境，并于2018年8月27日面临清盘的命运。

2018年12月13日，Build King行使了其在合资协议下的权利，以该公司破产为由，将该公司从合资企业中排除（“排除条款”）。

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:

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