It has been widely reported that, post Banking Royal Commission, the Australian Securities Investigation Commission (ASIC) will take a "why not litigate?" approach. As we foreshadowed in an article last month, this scrutiny will not be confined to the banking sector but is likely to extend to anyone subject to ASIC oversight.

Australia’s corporate insolvency regime has undergone significant reform with the passing of the Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Enterprise Incentives No. 2) Bill 2017 (the Bill) through both houses of parliament.

For decades, restructuring and insolvency matters in the Dominican Republic involving merchants and companies in non-regulated industries have been carried out on a “de facto” basis, due to the obsolescence of the existing legal framework and institutions. Fortunately, that is not the case anymore.

It is anticipated that, by the middle of the year, Australia will see the most significant reform to the corporate and personal insolvency environment in two decades. The reforms, which appear likely to be supported by all sides of government, are designed to promote business preservation and allow greater flexibility in order to ‘turnaround’ distressed companies.

In December 2015, as part of its National Innovation and Science Agenda, the Federal Government announced a proposal to introduce a ‘safe harbour’ for directors from personal liability for insolvent trading.

With continuing market volatility a number of companies remain under financial pressure. Businesses or individuals receiving payments from companies that might be financially distressed should be aware of the ability of a liquidator to apply to a court under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act) to recover payments made to creditors in the six months prior to the appointment of a liquidator/administrator on the grounds the payment constituted an “unfair preference”.

Quick Recap on the Relevant Provisions

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLC (PwC) won another victory in the MF Global litigation when the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of claims brought by former commodities customers (the “Customers”) of MF Global Inc. (“MFGI”). This holding is important for its clear affirmation of the in pari delicto doctrine and as a visible limitation on claims by parties not in privity.

Compensation to be paid to a bankruptcy estate professional is many times subject to intense dispute. In the case of a bankruptcy trustee, section 326 of the Bankruptcy Code provides for a tiered system of compensation based upon the amount of money distributed by the trustee to parties in interest. However, as demonstrated by the recent decision in In re Virgin Offshore U.S.A., Inc., 2015 Bankr. LEXIS 233 (Bankr. E.D. La. Jan.

On January 7, the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware issued an opinion that may have far reaching effects on cases involving asbestos liability.  Companies with potential asbestos liability, and actual and potential asbestos claimants, would be well advised to consider the Court’s opinion.

Imagine: you are a lender that has loaned substantial sums of money to an individual, secured by real property owned by the borrower. After the borrower defaults and negotiations fail, you seek and obtain the appointment of a receiver. But now litigation ensues—about the loan documents, about contract defaults, about interest rates, about foreign law. After a substantial investment of time and money, your trial date draws closer. At some point during this odyssey, your borrower secretly transfers the real property collateral to a newly-created, single-member LLC.