The Federal Court’s recent decision in Kellendonk concerned a $350,000 loan made by the applicants, Mr and Mrs Kellendonk, to Ms Maria Jasienska-Dudek to help her buy a property in Midland, Western Australia (Property). Ms Jasienska-Dudek defaulted under the loan agreement and the parties subsequently entered an informal agreement which, after Ms Jasienska-Dudek became a bankrupt, led to some novel circumstances and a novel application of section 133 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) (the Bankruptcy Act).

Cross-border insolvency has ventured into new territory as a judgment is released from the first contemporaneous sitting of the Federal Court of Australia and the High Court of New Zealand.

Section 90-15 of the Insolvency Practice Schedule (the IPS) confers on Courts wide powers to adjust rights related to companies in external administration. Here, the administrators of a mining group obtained orders approving their entry into a deed to fund the ongoing operation of the group pending sale and limiting their liability under the deed to the company’s assets. The Court accepted the administrators’ evidence that this funding was urgently required to continue the Group’s operations pending a sale, the prospects of which were thereby maximised.

Introduction

The last 12 months has seen a number of court applications being made for extensions of time to register a security interest under s293 of the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) (PPSA) and/or s588FM of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), to avoid collateral vesting in the grantor upon an insolvency event.

On 10 May 2021 in Badenoch Integrated Logging Pty Ltd v Bryant, in the matter of Gunns Limited (in liq)(receivers and managers apptd)^[i] the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia abolished the application of the Peak Indebtedness Rule to a running account ‘single transaction’ under section 588FA(3) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the Act) in unfair p

In Bechara v Bates,^[1] the Full Federal Court reminds us of the proper procedure for review of a sequestration order made by a registrar. This case raises an important point about bankruptcy practice and procedure in the Federal Circuit Court and the Federal Court.

In Ross, in the matter of Print Mail Logistics (International) Pty Ltd (in liq) v Elias,^[1] the Federal Court considered the extent to which a Jones v Dunkel^[2] inference can be made.

Introduction

引言

在Re China Huiyuan Group Ltd [2020] HKCFI 2940一案中，原訟法庭拒絕對一家在香港上市的開曼公司進行清盤，因為原訟法庭認為，呈請人未能證明在作出清盤令後，債權人確實有可能獲得實際利益。

案情

SDFIII Holdings Limited（以下簡稱「呈請人」）以資不抵債為由，發出對China Huiyuan Juice Group Limited（以下簡稱「該公司」）進行清盤的呈請。各方對該債務沒有爭議。

該公司在開曼群島註冊成立，並在香港聯交所主板上市。該公司的資產包括在英屬處女群島註冊成立的附屬公司的所有權，該等附屬公司在中國內地擁有附屬公司，而該等附屬公司又擁有該公司的相關資產，並開展生產及其他業務。

對該公司無爭議的是，該公司已資不抵債。該公司要求押後該呈請，以推進該公司的債務重組。由於股份已暫停買賣，而該公司亦面臨潛在的退市問題，該公司認為重組是令集團業務重回正軌的唯一方法，長遠而言，對該公司的債權人是有利的。

因此，法院將裁定是否立即發出清盤令或批准延期。

爭議點

爭議點如下：-