The recent Federal Court of Australia decision in Yu v STX Pan Ocean Co Ltd (South Korea), in the matter of STX Pan Ocean Co Ltd (receivers appointed in South Korea) [2013] FCA 680, highlights that the Court will be reluctant to grant additional relief to a foreign representative under the Cross Border Insolvency Act 2008 (Cth) where the additional relief sought would adversely affect the rights of creditors.
Facts
The recent Australian Federal Court decision of Yu v STX Pan Ocean Co Ltd (South Korea) in the matter of STX Pan Ocean Co Ltd (receivers appointed in South Korea) [2013] FCA 680 has the effect of allowing the arrest of a ship in Australia, despite the operation of the Cross Border Insolvency Act 2008 (Cth) which incorporates the United Nations Model Law on cross border insolvency into Australian law.
The first significant decision1 under the Australian Personal Properties Securities Act 2009 has followed New Zealand and Canadian law.
The case involved competing claims by a general security holder and a lessor to three civil construction vehicles located in the Northern Territory.
The relationship between the parties
Pursuant to section 459A of the Corporations Act (the Act), a Court may order that an insolvent company be wound up in insolvency. For such an order to be made, it is conventional practice that the applicant demonstrates insolvency at the date of filing the application and at the date of the hearing of the application.
The recent Federal Court of Australia (Court) decision Hird, in the matter of Allmine Group Limited (Administrators Appointed) (Receivers and Managers Appointed) [2013] FCA 748 involved an application for an extension to the convening period.
Facts
In the recent decision of Wentworth Metals Group Pty Ltd v Leigh and Owen (as liquidators of Bonython Metals Group Pty Limited); In the matter of Bonython Metals Group Pty Ltd (In liq) [2013] FCA 349, the Federal Court considered the duties owed by a liquidator when selling assets and the circumstances in which a court should interfere with the decisions of a liquidator.
BACKGROUND
The recent decision of Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Premiercorp Pty Limited (Administrators Appointed) [2013] FCA 778 is a good example of the supervisory power played by the Court in the voluntary administration process and shows how a deed of company arrangement (DOCA) may be set aside where it is contrary to the interests of the creditors as a whole, even if the creditors vote in favour of the proposed DOCA.
Facts
Introduction
The Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia has rejected an argument that the applicant for an order for a company to be wound in insolvency must prove that the company was insolvent at the "relation-back day" in addition to proving insolvency at the date of filing the application and the date of the hearing.
Our September 2012 insolvency update featured the article "Disclaiming Landlord's Interest in a Lease - an Australian Perspective". This article discussed the Victorian Court of Appeal's ruling that section 568(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (similar to our own section 269 of the Companies Act 1993 (NZ)) allows a liquidator to exercise his power of disclaimer to extinguish the leasehold estate of a tenant.
A creditor of a company subject to a Deed of Company Arrangement (DOCA) was recently successful in seeking termination of the DOCA by the court. As a result of the company's non-compliance with the DOCA, the majority of creditors resolved to extend the term of the DOCA and increase the amount to be paid by the company. The applicant creditor alleged that the DOCA should be terminated because the company had failed to make payment in accordance with it, and the variation had not taken effect.
The Court made an order terminating the DOCA on the grounds that: