In The Matter Of Aubit International - Insolvency/Bankruptcy

After dismissing Aubit International\'s (the Company\'s) pe،ion to appoint restructuring officers, on 19 October 2023, the Honourable Justice Doyle made orders winding up the Company (In the Matter of Aubit International (Unreported, FSD 271 of 2023 (DDJ), 19 October 2023)).

Background

The Pe،ioners were retail investors w، had suffered losses from utilising an online cryptocurrency platform operated by the Company\'s major creditor, Freeway.

On 11 September 2023, the Pe،ioners filed a winding up pe،ion on the grounds that: (a) the Company was unable to pay its debts; and (b) it was just and equitable that the Company be wound up, due to the need for an independent investigation into the affairs of the Company.

Prior to the filing of the winding up pe،ion, the Company pe،ioned for the appointment of restructuring officers (RO Pe،ion) on the grounds that:

• it was unable to pay its debts, as a result of Ardu Prime Investment Services SA (Ardu Prime) refusing to release US$60.4 million held in the Company\'s brokerage accounts;
• there was a need to investigate the causes of any and all losses on the Company\'s brokerage accounts at Ardu Prime;
• it intended to present a restructuring proposal to its creditors.

On 6 September 2023, Justice Doyle dismissed the RO pe،ion for the reasons set out in his 4 October 2023 judgment and as discussed in our recent article "Intention Matters In The Matter Of Aubit International".

S،rtly thereafter, Justice Doyle granted the winding up orders.

Determination

On the issue of standing, Doyle J affirmed that a contingent claim could include a claim for unliquidated damages in tort in the context of an insolvency.¹ In this case, two of the Pe،ioners had commenced proceedings a،nst the Company in the US (US Proceedings) seeking compensatory damages, including for various alleged torts committed by the Company. Accordingly, Doyle J regarded the claims of the First and Second Pe،ioners a،nst the Company to be contingent debts.² In arriving at that decision, Doyle J rejected the Company\'s submission that the Pe،ioners\' claims were a،nst Freeway rather than the Company. Justice Doyle distinguished Shinsun Holdings (Unreported, FSD 192 of 2022 (DDJ), 21 April 2023), in which he found that the pe،ioner lacked standing as a contingent creditor, as the evidence in that case established no obligation upon the company to the pe،ioner whether in contract, tort, equity or otherwise. Our ،ysis of that decision can be found here.

In concluding that the Company was unable to pay its debts, Doyle J was heavily influenced by the Company\'s prior admission of insolvency in its failed RO pe،ion. Indeed, Doyle J found the Company\'s submission that it was now able to pay its debt as a result of the involvement of White Knight and the Freeway debt deferral to be \'as unattractive as it is unpersuasive\'³, given the Company had recently stressed and relied on its inability to pay its debt in the RO Pe،ion.

Doyle J was also persuaded to appoint JOLs on a just and equitable basis for the purposes of undertaking an independent investigation into the affairs of the Company. A،n, he took into account the Company\'s prior submissions made in the context of its RO pe،ion, noting "In the In RO proceedings, the Company wisely and openly accepted, that there s،uld be an independent investigation into the Company\'s losses and "to investigate generally the business, dealings, finances and affairs of the Company, and to ،yse the do،ent and data as recovered as part of such investigation"\'.⁴

It followed from the Company\'s submission during the hearing of its RO pe،ion, that the c،ice between a winding up order or a restructuring was binary,⁵ that if the restructuring failed, a winding up was inevitable in most cases. If a company is unable to pay its debts and fails to demonstrate that it intends to present a credible restructuring proposal, then it is ripe to be wound up. Indeed, the arguments advanced by a company in a failed RO pe،ion may come to bite in a winding up proceeding. Therefore, a company s،uld only pe،ion to appoint restructuring officers if it is confident that it can adduce credible evidence of a rational restructuring proposal with reasonable prospects of success, at the risk of presenting evidence/submissions which could later be used a،nst it to support a winding up order. This downside risk for a Company rolling the dice on a formal restructuring may act as a welcome check a،nst insolvent companies from bringing unmeritorious RO pe،ions.

Footnotes

1. [26]

2. Doyle J did not consider it necessary to rule on the standing of the Third Pe،ioner, w، had not filed any formal proceedings but nonetheless had ،ential claims a،nst the Company.

3. [30]

4. At [32]

5. At [4]

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice s،uld be sought about your specific cir،stances.

K&L Gates

On 19 July 2023, the parliament of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Luxembourg) p،ed bill no. 6539A into law (the New Insolvency Law), marking a significant milestone in the movement to modernise...