17 Dec 2012
The court refused to exercise its discretion to grant validation because the sales exhibited suspicious circumstances and appeared to be at undervalue, jeopardising creditors' interests; the transactions were not shown to be normal commercial dealings and court approval was therefore denied.
3 Jun 2002
On the basis of the debtor's Statement of Affairs demonstrating that total liabilities greatly exceed assets and that he is unable to pay his debts, the court was satisfied to make a bankruptcy order against the debtor.
25 Jul 2000
Applications for stay were refused because the companies judge correctly exercised discretion on creditor class composition and preserved preferential rights; appellants failed to show a real prospect of irreparable harm or that the appeal would be rendered nugatory if the Schemes proceeded; granting a stay or restraining payment would risk destroying substantial going-concern value and would improperly vary effective Schemes sanctioned by creditors under s166; no sufficient basis existed to disturb the sanction on interlocutory application.
18 Apr 2000
Applying the rights test, the court found no dissimilarity of legal rights sufficient to require separate classes; the inclusion of internal creditors did not produce confiscation or injustice; independent creditors showed substantial support and disclosure and procedural irregularities were not such as to vitiate the meetings; accordingly the court exercised its discretion to sanction all 25 schemes, subject to the stated condition precedent.
18 Apr 2000
The court applied the rights-based test for class composition, found no confiscation or injustice from including internal creditors or from valuing disputed claims at zero where valuation was made in good faith, concluded that independent creditor support was sufficient (after adjustments) and that technical irregularities should be waived; accordingly the court sanctioned the 25 schemes subject to the stated condition precedent (Stock Exchange approval).