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.

Press reports are crowded with headlines about the rise in commercial bankruptcy filings, which increased yet again this year.¹ High interest rates, inflation, delayed effects of COVID, and huge corporate debt contributed to the jump in corporate insolvency filings. More are anticipated.

Judgment and award creditors often fret that US courts are unfriendly and the tools to unravel complicated asset protection schemes are inadequate. In an encouraging ruling refuting this sentiment, the Southern District of New York recently reiterated its endorsement for reverse veil piercing as a remedy for unsatisfied judgment creditors seeking to hold corporate entities responsible for judgment liabilities of shareholders and directors.

One of the significant risks that creditors weigh when deciding whether to lend money is bankruptcy risk: can the borrower use the bankruptcy laws to discharge the debt or compel the creditor to accept less than it bargained for? In the sovereign debt market, it has been an article of faith for creditors that states cannot file for bankruptcy and obtain such relief. But a recent ruling from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York—Hamilton Reserve Bank v.

What does it mean to own something? When should the law acknowledge that somebody really owns something, even if they don't formally own it?

And when will courts recognize the economic reality that one person — say, a judgment debtor — in truth owns something, notwithstanding that person's painstaking efforts to keep formal legal title in the hands of others?

The law has long recognized doctrines to disregard the existence, or pierc the veil, of corporate entities to which a debtor has transferred assets.

As 21st century disputes take on an increasingly cross-border character, so, too have parties resorted to a powerful tool provided to non-U.S. litigants under American law -- petitions to take discovery pursuant to Title 28 of the U.S. Code, Section 1782.

While many have focused on the question of whether private international arbitrations can support Section 1782 petitions, case law has evolved on another question: Can Section 1782 be used by litigants seeking to identify property to satisfy judgments rendered in non-U.S. proceedings?

What role might dispute funding play in a complex cross-border dispute involving multiple jurisdictions in Latin America?