The Federal Court has recently delivered judgment in the case of Cooper as Liquidator of Runtong Investment and Development Pty Ltd (In Liq)v CEG Direct Securities Pty Ltd [2024] FCA 6, a case where a liquidator was successful in having a mortgage declared as an unreasonable director-related transaction.
Key Takeaways
Lenders Beware: Security Vulnerable as an unreasonable director-related transaction
Cooper as Liquidator of Runtong Investment and Development Pty Limited) v CEG Director Securities Pty Limited [2024] FCA 6. ("CEG")
The FTX Group, an international cryptocurrency exchange platform, spectacularly collapsed in November 2022, resulting in FTX Trading Limited and 101 affiliated companies filing for relief under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court in Delaware. The Australian arm of the FTX group, FTX Australia Pty Ltd (‘FTX Aust’) and FTX Express Pty Ltd (‘FTX Express’) (collectively the ‘Companies’) was placed into administration in Australia shortly before the Chapter 11 filing.
Background
The Insolvency Practice Schedule (Corporations) (“IPS”) was inserted into the Corporations Act 2001 (“Act”) by the Insolvency Law Reform Act 2016 (Cth). Under section 70-45 of the IPS, a creditor can request an external administrator of a company to give company information to the creditor. The impetus behind introducing this section was trying to achieve greater transparency for creditors who, through their inspection of the administrator’s files, can monitor the external administrator’s conduct.
In this note, we provide a high-level overview of key restructuring cases from last year in the US, Asia Pacific and Australia and consider the outlook in 2024 for restructuring transactions.
US
The Federal Court in Morgan, in the matter of Traditional Values Management Limited (in liq)[2024] FCA 74, approved an abridged process that allowed the liquidator to admit debts of a group of unsecured creditors without requiring a formal proof of debt.
Key Takeaways
一、中澳破产程序之差异概述
破产制度是一种集体性债务清偿程序，旨在帮助无法偿还债务的公司或个人解决财务困境，同时确保债权人能够获得公平的清偿。中国和澳大利亚破产制度差异很大，本文旨在高度总结两种法律体系下破产制度的主要区别。
在澳大利亚，关于企业破产的适用法律主要规定在澳大利亚《公司法》(Corporations Act 2001)第五章，主要包括接管程序（Receivership）、清算程序（Liquidation）以及自愿管理程序（Voluntary Administration）。而在我国2007年颁布的《企业破产法》中，则主要包含三个破产程序，即破产清算程序、和解程序以及重整程序。本文将从破产程序的启动标准以及适用情景两方面对中澳破产程序之差异进行简要分析。
（一）破产程序启动标准
1、澳大利亚《公司法》项下的破产程序启动
Limiting Liability of Administrators for Employee Wages
Walley IMO PGP Group (Aust) Pty Ltd [2023] FCA 1554 ("PGP Group") and Crosbie IMO Godfreys Group Pty Ltd [2024] FCA 60 ("Godfreys")
Voluntary administrators have been able to seek orders releasing them from their personal liability for debts incurred by them in the course of conducting a company's business. That relief has been available where it has been necessary to support the continuing operation of that business.