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.

Judge Parker of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Texas recently issued an order in the case of Hilltop SPV, LLC, granting debtor Hilltop SPV LLC’s (“Hilltop”) motion to reject a Gas Gathering Agreement (“GGA”) with counter-party Monarch Midstream, LLC (“Monarch”).[1] This decision allows Hilltop to reject the GGA while allowing Monarch to retain the covenants that run with the land post-rejection.

Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P., 144 S. Ct. 2017 (June 27, 2024)

Deal structure matters, particularly in bankruptcy. The Third Circuit recently ruled that a creditor’s right to future royalty payments in a non-executory contract could be discharged in the counterparty-debtor’s bankruptcy. The decision highlights the importance of properly structuring M&A, earn-out, and royalty-based transactions to ensure creditors receive the benefit of their bargain — even (or especially) if their counterparty later encounters financial distress.

Background

In early February, a Delaware bankruptcy judge set new precedent by granting a creditors’ committee derivative standing to pursue breach of fiduciary duty claims against a Delaware LLC’s members and officers. At least three prior Delaware Bankruptcy Court decisions had held that creditors were barred from pursuing such derivative claims by operation of Delaware state law, specifically under the Delaware Limited Liability Company Act (the “DLLCA”).

A Massachusetts Bankruptcy Court’s recent appellate decision in Blumsack v. Harrington (In re Blumsack) leaves the door open for those employed in the cannabis industry to seek bankruptcy relief where certain conditions are met.

It is a rare occasion that one can be assured with certainty that, if they file a motion with a bankruptcy court, it will be granted. But, in the Third Circuit, that is exactly what will happen if a creditor or other party in interest moves for an examiner to be appointed under Section 1104(c) of the Bankruptcy Code. Once considered to be within the discretion of a bankruptcy court “as is appropriate,” the appointment of an examiner is now guaranteed if the statutory predicates are fulfilled according to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.