The exclusion of a related party creditor from participation in a DOCA distribution is not, without more, unfairly discriminatory or prejudicial under s 445D(1)(f)(i), particularly where the creditor's debt is deferred rather than extinguished and the creditor would receive nothing on an immediate winding up. A plaintiff seeking termination of a DOCA who offers to fund litigation in a winding up must provide adequate evidence of funding capacity and terms; vague offers are insufficient. The availability of alternative courses (such as proposing a competing DOCA or offering undertakings to protect other creditors) is a relevant discretionary factor weighing against termination.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 25 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 25 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.