18 Jun 2020
The court found the debtor did not demonstrate a reasonable prospect of being able to pay his debt and his proposed arrangement was commercially and legally unsatisfactory; s6D(1) cannot be used to avoid a petition when the debtor is already unable to pay and the debtor had not met the statutory test under s6D(3)/s9(3); accordingly the petition succeeded and a bankruptcy order was made.
12 Apr 2019
The statutory demand was not set aside: the debtor failed to provide expert or transactional evidence to show the Hanergy shares had market value at the date of the demand that equalled or exceeded the petition debt; the petitioners valuation was not shown to be wrong in a way that caused prejudice to the debtor and later sales could not safely be used to infer earlier market value.
7 Nov 2012
The application to set aside the statutory demand was dismissed because the applicant failed to establish a valid set-off or other grounds under Bankruptcy Rule 48(5); he produced insufficient evidence that the Hong Kong and Mainland facilities were integrated or that the Chinese proceedings gave rise to a set-off, and he had not taken steps to realise foreign property or made proposals to secure the debt.