Wild (Foreign Representative) v Coin Co International Plc (Administrators Appointed)

In the case of Wild (Foreign Representative) v Coin Co International Plc (Administrators Appointed), the parties involved were the administrators appointed by the UK courts, David Kerr and Peter Marsden, and Coin Co International Plc, a UK-based company. The dispute centred around the recognition of the UK administrators as foreign representatives and the recognition of the UK proceedings as a foreign main proceeding under the Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency. The court was required to decide whether the administrators appointed under the UK Insolvency Act 1986 should be recognised as foreign representatives and whether the UK proceedings should be recognised as a foreign main proceeding. Additionally, the court needed to determine if it should make an order deeming that the insolvent administration of the company in Australia commenced on the same day as the administration in the UK.

The court reasoned that while the Model Law allows for cooperation between courts and other competent authorities in cases of cross-border insolvency, it also provides for the protection of the interests of all creditors and other interested parties, including the debtor. The court noted that the UK administrators had been appointed to administer the company's assets and affairs and were acting as representatives of the foreign proceeding. The court also found that the UK proceedings took place in the state where the company had its centre of main interests and were, therefore, a foreign main proceeding. The court concluded that it should recognise the UK administrators as foreign representatives and the UK proceedings as a foreign main proceeding under the Model Law.

However, the court declined to make an order specifying the commencement date of the administration in Australia as sought by the administrators. The court held that while it might well be that, after due consideration, the relation back date or the date when the administration began in Australia should be held to be the date when the administration began in the UK, the mere fact that it had declined to make such an order for all purposes at that time did not preclude the administrators and their Australian representatives from contending that that was the correct date in respect of any particular action that might ultimately be brought.

The final orders made by the court included recognising the UK proceedings as a foreign proceeding and a foreign main proceeding, entrusting the administration of the company's assets located in Australia to the UK administrators, making available to the administrators all powers normally available to liquidators appointed under the Corporations Act, and requiring the administrators to notify creditors and publish notices of the orders made. The administrators were also granted leave to have these orders entered forthwith.