Introduction
In the recent judgment of In the Matter of Margara Shipping Limited (the “Margara Decision”)1 the Cayman Islands Grand Court provided some useful guidance on the basis on which a company can be restored to the Register of Companies (the “Register”) and subsequently wound up pursuant to section 159 of the Companies Act (2021 Revision) (the “Companies Act”) and the Grand Court Rules (2022 Consolidation) (“GCR”), Order 102, Rule 18.
The Legal Basis to Restore and Wind Up A Company
In the recent decision of Evergreen International Holdings Limited, delivered on 11 January 2022, the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands made an order for the immediate winding up of a company notwithstanding the company’s cross-applications for an adjournment of the winding up petition and the appointment of “light-touch” provisional liquidators for restructuring purposes. The Court dismissed the company’s cross-applications on the basis that there was no credible evidence which supported the company’s assertion that a viable restructuring was imminent.
In its recent judgment in Re Jabiru[1], the Supreme Court of New South Wales applied principles governing the appointment of Special Purpose Liquidators (SPL) in rejecting the Plaintiffs’ application for a SPL to be appointed to pursue claims against secured lenders.
In a recent Supreme Court of Victoria decision[1] in which we acted for the successful liquidators, the Court made various orders to enable the company to complete an ultra-efficient, streamlined second voluntary administration to expedite creditor consideration of a new DOCA proposal.
Key points
The recent Federal Court decision in Diversa Pty Ltd v Taiping Trustees Limited has highlighted some important risks faced by secured parties who don’t pay attention to the details when perfecting, and maintaining perfection of, their security.
The recent Federal Court decision in Diversa Pty Ltd v Taiping Trustees Limited has highlighted some important risks faced by secured parties who don’t pay attention to the details when perfecting, and maintaining perfection of, their security. Those risks include:
Morton as Liquidator of MJ Woodman Electrical Contractors Pty Ltd v Metal Manufacturers Pty Limited [2021] FCAFC 228.
In a resounding judgment delivered last week, the Full Federal Court has confirmed that a statutory set-off under section 533C is not available to a defendant in unfair preference proceedings.
Key Takeaways
The Australian Sawmilling Co Pty Ltd (in liq) v Environment Protection Authority [2021] VSCA 294
The Victorian Court of Appeal’s decision in The Australian Sawmilling Co Pty Ltd (in liq) v Environment Protection Authority [2021] VSCA 294 casts significant doubt on liquidators’ capacity to rely upon section 568 of the Corporations Act to disclaim environmental liabilities, despite the absence of any involvement of the liquidator in the creation of those liabilities.
In a substantial recent decision arising from the Arrium liquidation[1], the Supreme Court of New South Wales considered the materiality of significant future liabilities in assessing the company’s solvency.
A hotly anticipated decision in the ongoing saga of the Babcock & Brown liquidation was handed down last week, resulting in another win for the liquidator (represented by Johnson Winter & Slattery) and further highlighting the challenges facing liquidators when they are thrust into a quasi-judicial function when assessing proofs of debt.