In KSK Holdings (Australia) Pty Ltd (in liquidation) [2019] NSWSC 1463 a liquidator sought directions from the Supreme Court of New South Wales under section 90-15(1) of the Insolvency Practice Schedule (Corporations) at Schedule 2 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

The Government on 20 May 2020 published the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill, which contains the most far-reaching reforms to UK insolvency law in over 30 years. The Bill has been introduced on an emergency basis in an attempt to ensure that otherwise financially viable companies survive during a period of unprecedented interruption and turmoil. However, it could upset the delicate balance between debtors and creditors under UK insolvency law.

The sometimes controversial Examinership process, established in 1990, remains a very important tool for Irish companies with viable businesses that find themselves in financial difficulties.

It was established with the intention of preserving employment and benefiting the economy by facilitating corporate recovery. Examinership enables companies that successfully come through the process to do so with new investment and, hopefully, a brighter future that might not have otherwise been possible if the company had been forced into receivership or liquidation.

The recent decision of the Federal Court in Strawbridge, in the matter ofVirgin Australia Holdings Ltd (administrators appointed) [2020] FCA 571 provides an example of the Court granting flexibility to administrators performing their functions through the challenges presented by the COVID-19 pandemic.

In ACN 093 117 232 Pty Ltd (In Liq) v Intelara Engineering Consultants Pty Ltd (In Liq) [2019] FCA 1489, the court considered whether a “legal phoenix” arrangement entered into after receiving professional advice was in fact a voidable transaction.

The facts

Intelara Pty Ltd (OldCo) operated an engineering consultancy business and after experiencing financial difficulties in 2014 sought professional advice concerning the potential restructure of the company.

The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill (the “Bill”) is finally out (all 238 pages of it!) and due to have its second reading in Parliament on 3 June. The expectation is that it will pass without debate and, as such, we need to ask ourselves: what does it all mean? The first thing to note is that the Bill deals with both temporary measures that are necessary and linked to the Covid-19 pandemic as well as those that are here to stay and that have been on the radar since the Government’s consultation ended in 2018.

A company’s intellectual property rights^[1] are some of its most valuable and most enduring assets. They are also often the most encumbered, or the most enhanced, by contract.

(This article was published in the May 2020 Issue of Hong Kong Lawyer: http://www.hk-lawyer.org/sites/default/files/e-magazines/HKL-MAY-2020/viewer/desktop/index.html?doc=917CC81E9107138E6C05E7B46F3C9397#page/30)

A company in liquidation served a creditor’s statutory demand for debt where there was a genuine dispute about the existence of the alleged debt. The statutory demand was set aside by the Court and the liquidators were ordered to personally pay costs on an indemnity basis.

What happened

In SJG Developments Pty Limited v NT Two Nominees Pty Limited (in liquidation) [2020] QSC 104:

A company incorporated in the British Virgin Islands (the “BVI”) can be placed into insolvent liquidation either by: a shareholders’ qualifying resolution; or a court order, following an application to the court and a hearing.

The effect of an insolvent liquidation is to put the affairs of the company in the hands of an independent insolvency practitioner who is required to take possession of, protect and realise the company’s assets for the benefit of the company’s creditors.

An application to court can be made by: