This week’s TGIF considers Krejci, in the matter of Union Standard International Group Pty Limited (in liq) (No 7) [2022] FCA 890, in which the Federal Court gave liquidators approval to conduct extensive and expensive public examinations despite there being limited expected return to creditors, in part to try and uncover the truth behind $585 million that cannot be accounted for in the company’s dealings.

Key takeaways

Legal nature of a keepwell deed

Keepwell deeds are widely used in offshore financing transactions, but such arrangement has only been tested in the PRC courts in recent years. In this alert, we explore issues relevant to the enforceability of such arrangements in Mainland China.

In a recent decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (In the matter of C.V. Joint (Aust) Pty Ltd [2002] NSWSC 981), a provisional liquidator was appointed by the Court to a company primarily due to an ongoing dispute between the directors and shareholders. The case is a useful reminder of the relevant principles that apply when seeking to have a provisional liquidator appointed.

Key takeaways

This week’s TGIF considers the latest of two recent Federal Court decisions approving the compromise of debts owed to a company in liquidation, on the application of liquidators pursuant to section 477(2A) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and on confidential terms.

Key takeaways

This week’s TGIF considers a decision of Georges (Liquidator), in the Matter of SIRA Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) [2022] FCA 768, in which liquidators were granted leave to serve a summons for examination on a company based in Singapore.

Key takeaways

This week’s TGIF considers the decision of In the matter of Bryve Resources Pty Ltd [2022] NSWSC 647, which illustrates the circumstances in which liquidators can recover payments made by the company to, or for the benefit of, directors.

Key takeaways

This week’s TGIF considers Arnautovic v Qaqour [2022] FCA 726 in which the Federal Court of Australia ordered a director of a company in liquidation to surrender his passport and prohibited him from travelling outside of NSW without the Court’s prior consent.

Key takeaways

引言

近年来，伴随着经济形势与产业政策的变化，融资租赁成为了争议高发领域，并且日益呈现出争议案件数量多、标的金额大等特点。以上海地区为例，根据上海高级人民法院发布的《2020年度上海法院金融商事审判情况通报》，在2020年上海法院受理的一审金融商事案件中，融资租赁合同纠纷的案件数量位居第三，同比上升65.93%，争议标的金额则位居第二，仅次于金融借款合同纠纷。而在诸多争议之中，对于租赁物所有权的保护始终是多年以来困扰我国融资租赁从业者、司法裁判者甚至是立法者的一大难题。[1]

本篇中，我们将结合过往在融资租赁业务领域的执业经验，从程序及实体两个角度，分别梳理《中华人民共和国民法典》（以下简称“《民法典》”）生效前的存量项目中，出租人在租赁物被承租人擅自处分后可能面临的“困局”及“破局”进路。而在下篇中，我们将基于后《民法典》时代法律条文与配套制度的更迭，进一步对融资租赁行业实践的变化作出解读与研判。

一、 “困局”：租赁物被承租人擅自处分，出租人的物权保障岌岌可危

In a recent decision of the Federal Court of Australia (Sino Group International Limited v Toddler Kindy Gymbaroo Pty Ltd [2022] FCA 630), administrators were held to have validly admitted a $5 million claim for a nominal value of one dollar.

The case is a timely reminder of the importance of appropriately evidencing debts, particularly for the purposes of creditors meetings to determine next steps.

Key takeaways

A prohibition order in place on a development in Hassall Street, Parramatta, NSW, serves as a useful reminder for developers, builders and financiers of the importance of complying with the requirements of the Design and Building Practitioners Act 2020 (NSW) (DBP Act) and the Residential Apartment Buildings (Compliance and Enforcement Powers) Act 2020 (NSW) (RAB Act) (together, the Acts) (and the consequences of non-compliance).