Last year, we reported that Australia had proposed significant insolvency reforms that, in our view, are long overdue ("A Major Leap Forward for Australian Insolvency Laws").
Last year, we reported that Australia had proposed significant insolvency reforms that, in our view, are long overdue ("A Major Leap Forward for Australian Insolvency Laws").
Australia is making several significant reforms to its insolvency legislation – with more changes likely to come – to provide much-needed comfort for directors and to align legislation on ipso facto clauses in order to prevent contractual terminations simply as a result of the commencement of an insolvency proceeding. (See the Productivity Commission Report on Business Set-up, Transfer and Closure (available here)).
Introduction
On May 3, 2017, the Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico (the “Oversight Board”), acting on behalf of the cash-strapped Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (the “Commonwealth”), filed for bankruptcy protection in the District Court for the District of Puerto Rico. The Commonwealth’s Title III Petition for Covered Territory or Covered Instrumentality (the “Petition”) was filed in accordance with Title III of the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act (“PROMESA”), codified at 48 U.S.C. § 2161, et seq.
On July 31, 2017, the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York recognized a Russian insolvency proceeding as a foreign main proceeding under chapter 15 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code (“Code”), concluding that (i) a retainer deposited with the debtor’s attorneys in the U.S. was sufficient property within the United States to establish jurisdiction over a debtor under section 109(a) of the Code and (ii) the Russian insolvency proceeding was not “manifestly contrary to public policy of the United States.”
In a previous article, The Eagle and the Bear: Russian Proceedings Recognized Under Chapter 15, we discussed In re Poymanov, in which the Bankruptcy Court (SDNY) recognized a Russian foreign proceeding under chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code even though the debtor had only nominal assets in the United States (the “Recognition Order”). The Bankruptcy Court had declined to rule upon recognition whether the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C.
A recent decision by the Third Circuit in the Nortel Group bankruptcy reinforces the worldwide reach of the automatic stay and the narrow scope of the police power exception under section 362(b)(4) of the Bankruptcy Code. In Nortel Networks, Inc. v. Trustee of Nortel Networks U.K. Pension Plan, No. 11-1895 (3d Cir. Dec. 29, 2011), the Third Circuit held that the automatic stay barred U.K. pension claimants from participating in U.K. proceedings meant to determine the debtors’ liability for their affiliate’s pension funding shortfalls.
In Canada, as in the US, corporate debtors are permitted with court approval to obtain DIP financing on a super-priority basis. The Order typically provides protections as hard as a nutshell, including that pension claims cannot crack the shell of protection and are subordinated to the new DIP loan. A recent Canadian decision, however, held that certain pension claims could crack the nut wide open and should be paid ahead of a DIP loan. Re Indalex Limited, 2011 ONCA 265 (Apr. 7, 2011).
On 13 June 2019, the much anticipated DIFC Insolvency Law No. 1 of 2019 and associated DIFC Insolvency Regulations 2019 (collectively the “2019 DIFC Insolvency Law”), came into full force and effect, replacing the DIFC Insolvency Law No. 3 of 2009.
By way of context, the 2019 DIFC Insolvency Law applies only to entities registered and operating within the DIFC.