Foreign banks, registries and courts act on their own law, not on an Australian appointment. To reach assets abroad, a liquidator or trustee usually needs a local court to recognise the appointment. Australia recognises foreign proceedings under the Cross-Border Insolvency Act 2008 (Cth), while recognition overseas depends on each country’s law.
Why is recognition needed?
Under the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth), a bankrupt’s overseas property vests in the trustee. Vesting on paper is not control, and a foreign bank will rarely act on an Australian appointment alone. The same is true in reverse for foreign office holders with Australian assets.
How does recognition work in Australia?
The Act gives the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency the force of law (s 6). A foreign representative applies to the Federal Court or, for companies, a State or Territory Supreme Court (s 10).
A “foreign main proceeding” is one in the country of the debtor’s centre of main interests (COMI). A “non-main” proceeding is one where the debtor merely has an establishment (art 2). A company’s registered office is presumed to be its COMI, absent proof to the contrary (art 16(3)).
Recognition of a main proceeding automatically stays actions and execution, and suspends dealings with the debtor’s assets (art 20). For either kind of proceeding, the court may grant discretionary relief, including examinations and entrusting local assets (art 21). Assets go abroad for distribution only if local creditors are adequately protected (art 21(2)). A recognised representative may also bring voidable transaction claims (art 23).
Courts must cooperate “to the maximum extent possible” with foreign courts and representatives (art 25). Except for tax and social security claims, a creditor’s claim cannot rank lower solely because the creditor is foreign (s 12(2)). Our cross-border insolvency guide covers the filing requirements.
Are the older routes still useful?
Yes. Under s 581 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), courts must aid courts of prescribed countries in external administration matters, and may aid others. An Australian court may also ask a foreign court for help (s 581(4)).
Section 29 of the Bankruptcy Act is the personal insolvency equivalent. The Australian Financial Security Authority lists nine prescribed countries for it, including the United Kingdom, Singapore and the United States.
How does an Australian office holder get recognised abroad?
Australian trustees and registered liquidators may act in a foreign State “as permitted by the applicable foreign law” (art 5 and s 11).
UNCITRAL lists 66 jurisdictions with legislation based on the Model Law, including:
- Great Britain, through the Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations 2006;
- the United States, through Chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code, which begins with a petition for recognition;
- New Zealand, through the Insolvency (Cross-border) Act 2006, with applications to the High Court;
- Singapore, through s 252 and the Third Schedule of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018.
Hong Kong is not on UNCITRAL’s list. In a 2021 paper, its Department of Justice referred to recognition by the Hong Kong court “under the existing common law regime”.
We advise on Australian law only. Each foreign application needs advice from lawyers qualified in that country. We handle the Australian side, such as court orders and letters of request.
What have Australian courts done recently?
York, in the matter of Exactech, Inc (No 2) [2025] FCA 73 involved a US Chapter 11 case. The Federal Court recognised it as a foreign main proceeding. The company’s registered office and management were in Florida, so the COMI presumption stood. The stay was held most closely analogous to voluntary administration.
In Georges (Liquidator), in the matter of SIRA Pty Ltd (in liq) [2023] FCA 766, liquidators needed production orders enforced against two Singapore companies. The Federal Court issued a letter of request under s 581(4) to the High Court of Singapore. It required a good substantive reason and utility. A Singapore lawyer’s opinion that the court there was likely to act showed utility.
How long does it take?
Australian courts must decide recognition “at the earliest possible time” (art 17(3)). Urgent interim relief is available from filing (art 19). In Exactech, the application was filed on 20 December 2024. An interim stay followed three days later, and recognition on 6 February 2025. Timing abroad depends on local procedure and any opposition.
What liquidators and creditors should do now
- Map where assets, records and counterparties sit, country by country.
- Gather evidence of COMI and certified copies of the appointment, with translations.
- For each country, choose the route: Model Law recognition, a letter of request or common law assistance.
- Obtain written local advice early. In SIRA, a foreign lawyer’s opinion supported the request.
- Where assets may move, consider interim relief or freezing orders.
- Creditors facing a foreign proceeding should check whether it is recognised here, and seek protection before assets leave Australia.
What to watch
In October 2024, Australia proposed that UNCITRAL update its Guide to Enactment and Interpretation of the Model Law, last revised in 2013. A colloquium on updates followed in December 2025. UNCITRAL’s insolvency working group next meets on 7–11 December 2026.
The Model Law must be read with regard to its international origin and uniformity (art 8). An updated Guide may therefore shape Australian decisions. Watch also for further adoptions in Asia, after Malaysia in 2025. A foreign money judgment raises separate issues: see enforcing foreign judgments in Australia.
To discuss how these developments affect you, contact us on +61 7 3229 9800 or send us an enquiry online.
This article is general information only and is not legal advice.
Sources: Cross-Border Insolvency Act 2008 (Cth), including Schedule 1; UNCITRAL, Status: Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency (1997); Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 581; AFSA, Treatment of property in bankruptcy; Federal Court of Australia, Cross-Border Insolvency Practice Note (GPN-XBDR); York, in the matter of Exactech, Inc (No 2) [2025] FCA 73; Georges (Liquidator), in the matter of SIRA Pty Ltd (in liq) [2023] FCA 766; Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations 2006 (SI 2006/1030); United States Courts, Chapter 15 – Bankruptcy Basics; Insolvency (Cross-border) Act 2006 (NZ); Re Blackstone Asia Real Estate Partners Ltd [2025] SGHC 191; Hong Kong Department of Justice, LegCo AJLS Panel paper (31 May 2021); UNCITRAL, A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.199 (Australia’s proposal, 14 October 2024); UNCITRAL Working Group V: Insolvency Law.