A recent decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia considered an application under Section 444GA of the Act where Administrators of a Deed of Company Arrangement sought leave to transfer the shares of an insolvent company to in circumstances where that transfer of shares would result in a return to shareholders of the insolvent company which the court referred to as “unique”.
MONTHLY NEWSLETTER ARBITRATION Rajiv Gaddh v. Subodh Parkash Civil Appeal No. of 2026(@ SLP (C) No. 4430 of 2025) M/s. MCM Worldwide Private Limited v. M/s. Construction Industry Development Council Civil Appeal No. of 2026 (@ SLP (C) No. 33075 of 2025) CIVIL LAW Reliance Eminent Trading and Commercial Private Limited v. Delhi Development Authority, Civil Appeal No. of 2026 (Arising Out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 22100 of 2025) State Bank of India v. Amit Iron Private Limited and Others, Civil Appeal Nos. 4243-4244 of 2026 (@ Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.
- INTRODUCTION
- Cross-border insolvency proceedings routinely require courts to navigate complex questions of jurisdiction, recognition, and cooperation in circumstances where corporate structures, debtor’s assets and/or stakeholders are dispersed across multiple jurisdictions.
In recent years, we have seen the deed of company arrangement or "DOCA" being used in Australia by sophisticated investors as a restructuring tool of choice. This is primarily due to the swiftness in which a DOCA can be implemented and its flexibility to effect a broad range of restructuring transactions with relative ease.
To those familiar with both U.S. and Australian insolvency regimes, Australia's creditors' scheme of arrangement (Scheme) may appear, at first glance, to resemble a Chapter 11 restructuring in disguise. This is because both regimes facilitate creditor compromise, allow incumbent management to remain in control, involve court supervision and rely on class-based voting structures to approve a restructuring outcome.
It is well understood that Australia's voluntary administration regime provides companies and their administrators with significant flexibility to promote business restructurings. This is in large part due to the statutory moratorium afforded to insolvent companies, allowing breathing space for the administrator to work with relevant stakeholders to promote a sale and/or restructuring via a deed of company arrangement.
In the corridors of a volatile economy, commercial strongholds sometimes face fierce winds that exceed the capacity of their financial buffers. Management finds itself facing two choices: either surrender to despair and declare bankruptcy—which effectively means burying the commercial entity—or engage in the battle of "Restructuring" with the mindset of a surgeon and the logic of a leader.
Why is Bankruptcy Not the Solution?
Imagine operating a company, only to find without any warning that the company’s bank accounts have been blocked. The immediate consequence is one of acute disruption and uncertainty. You learn that a winding-up petition has been filed against the company, triggering restrictions that effectively prevent it from carrying out ordinary financial transactions. At that point, a pressing question arises: how is the business expected to continue operating under such constraints?