The Supreme Court of Victoria has considered the viability of allowing a company to enter a second voluntary administration after going into liquidation following a failed DOCA. The Court considered that rather than maintain a state of liquidation, the secondary voluntary administration process would better serve the best interests of creditors and optimise the efficiency of the restructuring process. The decision serves as a useful guide to the considerations and orders appropriate for successfully arguing a company out of liquidation.

Background

Family law processes cannot be used to defraud creditors. In Re ZH International Pty Ltd (in liq), the Supreme Court of New South Wales held that transfers of property from a company to the directors and shareholders of that company as part of family law proceedings were voidable transactions under section 588FF of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) where the company was not a party to the orders and the orders did not require the company to make the transfers.

Background

Public examination can be a useful tool for parties in a liquidation to obtain information about matters relating to a company’s affairs. In the matter of Jewel of India Holdings Pty Ltd ACN 141 963 813 (in liquidation) [2022] NSWSC 356, the Court considered whether summonses for public examination, that were issued by the former owner of the business to the liquidators and former administrators of Jewel Holdings, constituted an abuse of process.

Introduction

In the recent case of Trinity Concept Ltd (In Liq) v Wong Kung Sang (黃共生) [2022] 1 HKLRD 1388, the Court of First Instance (“Court”) dismissed the defendant’s application to strike out a claim for an account on the ground that the action was not commenced within the six-year limitation period under section 20(2) of the Limitation Ordinance (Cap. 347 of the Laws of Hong Kong) (“LO”).

Background

簡介

最近在Trinity Concept Ltd (In Liq) v Wong Kung Sang (黃共生) [2022] 1 HKLRD 1388一案中，原告人提出申索，要求被告人交代帳目。被告人以有關訴訟沒有在《時效條例》（香港法例第347章）第20(2) 條訂明的六年訴訟時效內提出為由，申請剔除原告人的申索，但被原訟法庭（「法院」）駁回。

背景

Trinity Concept Ltd（「原告人」）是一間正在清盤的公司，它控告其兩名前董事（「被告人」）違反受信責任，向第三方作出合共139筆付款而沒有妥當解釋（「可疑交易」）。原告人請求法院頒令被告人交代帳目，並在製備帳目後交出結欠的資產或付款，或命令被告人作出衡平法補償。被告人認為可疑交易距離令狀發出已超過六年，因此本案已喪失訴訟時效，應根據《時效條例》第4(2) 條予以駁回。

裁決

法院指出下列與剔除申請有關的重要問題：

简介

最近在Trinity Concept Ltd (In Liq) v Wong Kung Sang (黄共生) [2022] 1 HKLRD 1388一案中，原告人提出申索，要求被告人交代账目。被告人以有关诉讼没有在《时效条例》（香港法例第347章）第20(2) 条订明的六年诉讼时效内提出为由，申请剔除原告人的申索，但被原讼法庭（「法院」）驳回。

背景

Trinity Concept Ltd（「原告人」）是一间正在清盘的公司，它控告其两名前董事（「被告人」）违反受信责任，向第三方作出合共139笔付款而没有妥当解释（「可疑交易」）。原告人请求法院颁令被告人交代账目，并在制备账目后交出结欠的资产或付款，或命令被告人作出衡平法补偿。被告人认为可疑交易距离令状发出已超过六年，因此本案已丧失诉讼时效，应根据《时效条例》第4(2) 条予以驳回。

裁决

法院指出下列与剔除申请有关的重要问题：

In a recent case involving a default judgment to recover the sum of an outstanding loan, the Federal Court of Australia considered whether it had jurisdiction to set aside a bankruptcy notice issued against the guarantor of the loan and whether it had jurisdiction to extend the time for compliance with the bankruptcy notice.

Background

In Algeri, in the matter of WBHO Australia Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) [2022] FCA 169, the Federal Court heard the second application by the administrators who were seeking an extension to the convening period for the second meeting of creditors, which pursuant to section 439A(5) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the Act) was set to expire on 24 March 2022.

In the recent case of In the matter of Spitfire Corporation Limited (in liquidation) and Aspirio Pty Ltd (in liquidation) [2022] NSWSC 340, the NSW Supreme Court has provided clarity on the order of priority for employee debts and secured creditor claims, where the key asset is an entitlement to tax refunds for research and development.

This matter involved the liquidators of Spitfire Corporation seeking directions under s 90-15 of the Insolvency Practice Schedule (Corporations) that:

簡介

最近在Re Klimvest plc [2022] EWHC 596 (Ch) 一案中，英國高等法院（「法院」）基於一個比較罕見的理由頒令將一家上市公司清盤——失去公司基礎（loss of substratum），即公司放棄其主要宗旨和目的。

背景

Klimvest Plc（「該公司」）於2019年1月出售其業務及資產，其後其唯一重大資產為約800萬英鎊的現金儲備。出售資產後，該公司的最大股東Klimt Invest SA（「第一答辯人」）要求該公司動用出售所得款項作出新投資，而非將在清盤中分派予股東。

Eric Duneau先生（「呈請人」）要求根據英國《1986年無力償債法》第122(1)(g) 條頒令該公司清盤，認為由於該公司已失去其目的或基礎，將該公司清盤屬公正公平。第一答辯人反對呈請，辯稱（其中包括）該公司並無失去其目的或基礎，因為該公司在出售資產前實質上已成為一間控股投資公司，公司的目的仍可透過該投資實現。

失去公司基礎的測試