Successful outcomes for clients seeking to obtain winding up orders against foreign companies with local agents. The case summaries below, of Re Anagram International LLC (recs and mgrs apptd) [2025] VSC 267 and the earlier matter of W Capital Advisors Pty Ltd (in its capacity as trustee for the W Capital Advisors Fund) v Mawson Infrastructure Group, Inc (NSD1395/2024), provide guidance on how parties can best position themselves for success in these circumstances.

Relevant Law

The decision of the Federal Court inTrue North Copper Limited (Administrators Appointed) [2024] FCA 1329 demonstrates the exercise of the Court’s discretion in giving effect to the objects of Pt 5.3A of theCorporations Act 2001 (Cth), whilst offering protection to administrators against liabilities which may arise when making commercial decisions in the course of discharging their duties effectively.

Introduction

The landmark decision by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Stevanovich v Richardson¹provides authoritative guidance on the proper interpretation of “person aggrieved” under section 273 of the BVI Insolvency Act, which deals with standing to challenge a liquidator’s decision.

The much-anticipated UK Supreme Court decision in El-Husseiny and another v Invest Bank PSC [2025] UKSC 4 was released recently, providing much-needed clarity to creditors and officeholders about the application of section 423 Insolvency Act 1986 to transactions involving debtors and company structures. Creditors and officeholders alike will be pleased with this decision, as the Court determined that the language and purpose of section 423 are such that a ‘transaction’ is not confined to dealing with an asset owned by the debtor.

The impact of COVID-19 is being felt at all levels of the economy and will work its way through bankruptcy courts for years to come. In these early days, many creditors who are themselves suffering are providing assistance to troubled companies. Suppliers and commercial landlords are agreeing to various forms of relief, including modified credit terms and rent relief to allow customers to bridge this period of unprecedented disruption. While these corporate good Samaritans are providing immediate aid they may be subjecting themselves to the risk of future losses.

The economic fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic will leave in its wake a significant increase in commercial chapter 11 filings. Many of these cases will feature extensive litigation involving breach of contract claims, business interruption insurance disputes, and common law causes of action based on novel interpretations of long-standing legal doctrines such as force majeure.

Last week, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act was signed into law, implementing broad relief for individuals and businesses affected by COVID-19. One of the sections of the CARES Act receiving less attention is a temporary amendment to the Bankruptcy Code to provide streamlined reorganization procedures for businesses with debt of less than $7.5 million.

As the nation hunkers down to combat the novel coronavirus (COVID-19), bankruptcy courts throughout the country have moved quickly to implement procedures to preserve access to the courts while limiting in-person interaction during the crisis. Each court’s specific COVID-19 procedures are different, but they largely prohibit in-person hearings, recognize the need for flexibility and adjournments for non-emergent matters whenever possible, and encourage the creative use of technology to allow as many matters to go forward as scheduled, including evidentiary hearings.

Social distancing. Elbow bumps. Flatten the curve. These are the new phrases and behaviors we have learned to avoid exposure to the novel coronavirus (COVID-19). This epic struggle forces us to reexamine and reevaluate our daily habits, lifestyles and customs as we work collectively to minimize the harm to our families, friends and neighbors throughout the United States.

On February 25, 2020, in Rodriguez v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, No. 18-1269 (U.S. 2020), the U.S. Supreme Court effectively ruled that the so-called “Bob Richards rule” should not be used to determine which member of a group of corporations filing a consolidated federal income tax return is entitled to a federal income tax refund.