Australia’s new ipso facto regime is now in effect. It stays the enforcement of contractual rights triggered upon the entry of a corporate counterparty into certain restructuring and insolvency processes. The regime will affect a broad range of contracts entered into on or after 1 July 2018; however, certain contracts and contractual rights have been excluded from the operation of the stay pursuant to statutory instruments which have just been issued.

On 16 April 2018, the Australian Federal Government (Government) launched a public consultation on proposed exceptions to the recently enacted stay on ipso facto clauses. These exceptions, which will be contained in a forthcoming declaration and regulations, will be critical to the operation of the new ipso facto regime, and its impact on stakeholders.

An effective and well-equipped insolvency and restructuring regime gives confidence to investors and financiers, enabling credit to flow through to businesses and boost economic activity, growth and innovation.

A great deal of insolvency litigation is funded by non-parties to a claim – for example, by a creditor or an “after the event” (ATE) insurer. Ordinarily such arrangements and their precise terms are confidential and are not required to be fully disclosed to a counterparty in litigation. In the recent case of Re Hellas Telecommunications (Luxembourg) [2017] EWHC 3465 (ch) (“Hellas”), the court considered the extent to which the underlying details of the litigation funders should be disclosed for the purposes of a security for costs application.

In the first judgment under Singapore’s new ‘super priority’ DIP financing regime, the Singapore High Court declined to grant priority status to funds to be advanced to the Attilan Group.

The Singapore regime is the first to import US Chapter 11-style DIP priority funding mechanisms into a jurisdiction with primarily English-law based corporate law and insolvency regimes.

The judgment discusses how Singapore provisions align with established principles under US Bankruptcy Code provisions and case law.

There are various ways misconduct can be reported in respect of companies and individuals. Establishing which authority has the power to conduct investigations of wrongdoing depends to a certain extent on the status of the companies and individuals.

The New South Wales Court of Appeal has, in a decision that has surprised many practitioners, dismissed an appeal which challenged the composition of classes in the creditors’ scheme of arrangement involving Boart Longyear Limited.1

In a recent landmark decision, Re Boart Longyear Limited [2017] NSWSC 567, the New South Wales Supreme Court granted orders to convene creditor meetings for two schemes of arrangement in respect of the restructuring plan of Boart Longyear Limited.

Major law changes intended to make Singapore the region’s pre-eminent restructuring and insolvency hub have now come into effect.

On 22 May 2017, the Singapore Ministry of Finance issued a notice that sections 22 to 34, 40, 41, 43, 45, 49, 50, 53(3) and (6) and 54 (the Relevant Sections) of the Companies (Amendment) Act 2017 (the Amendment Act) would come into operation on 23 May 2017.

The recent Court of Appeal case of JCAM Commercial Real Estate Property XV Limited v. Davis Haulage Limited [2017] EWCA Civ 267 has set out the importance of there being a settled intention to enter administration and indicated that this is a pre-requisite to an out of court appointment being validly made.