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.
In the event of a contractual counterparty going into liquidation, whether or not a trade counterparty may claim set-off against debts owed to the insolvent counterparty can dramatically affect the commercial position of the account debtor. This was recently highlighted in the decision of Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd v Forge Group Power Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) (Receivers and Managers appointed) [2017] WASC (2 June 2017).
What does this mean for you?
On 28 March 2017, the Turnbull Government released draft legislation which would implement wide-ranging reforms to Australia’s corporate restructuring laws. The draft legislation focuses on reforms to the insolvent trading prohibition (Safe Harbour) and introducing a new stay on enforcing “ipso facto” clauses during certain restructuring procedures (Ipso Facto).
The High Court of Australia in CGU Insurance Ltd v Blakeley & Ors [2016] HCA 2 unanimously confirmed that a third party can join a defendant’s insurer to a proceeding and seek a declaration of rights under the insurance agreement, provided that third party has a ‘real interest’ in the performance of the agreement and that there is practical utility in the court providing that declaration.
The unanimous decision by the Full Court of the Federal Court in Templeton v Australian and Securities Investments Commission [2015] FCAFC 137 confirms that the concept of proportionality is a well-recognised factor in considering the question of reasonable remuneration for an insolvency practitioner, and that, in assessing a remuneration claim, the Court can take into account the quality and complexity of the work as well as the value and nature of any property dealt with and the time reasonably spent.
The recent decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in In re One2One Communications, LLC may radically alter the ability of debtors to escape appeals of confirmed plans for reorganization. The Third Circuit, which governs the influential Delaware bankruptcy courts, has for almost 20 years embraced the judicially created doctrine of “equitable mootness” as a basis for dismissal of ap
Illinois Governor Rauner presented his turnaround agenda in his “State of the State” address last week and called for, among other things, the state “to extend to municipalities bankruptcy protections.” Mirroring the proposed legislation introduced by Representative Ron Sandack in January, and reported on in an earlier post, Illinois seems positioned to provide municipalities with clear and direct access to Chapter 9 bankruptcy and
On February 6th, Federal District Judge Francisco Besosa ruled that Puerto Rico’s municipal debt-restructuring law, the “Recovery Act”, was unconstitutional stating that: “The Recovery Act is pre-empted by the federal Bankruptcy Code and is therefore void.” The Court also permanently enjoined current and future government officials from enforcing the Act. Puerto Rico has announced that it will be appealing the ruling.
Illinois’ municipal distress is severe and we have witnessed the political maneuvers to address Chicago’s ongoing fiscal dilemma. In 2013, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emmanuel stoked bankruptcy fears citing the city’s ballooning pension obligations that he estimated could exceed $1.6 billion in 2016. Pew Charitable Trusts has reported that among the nation’s five largest cities, Chicago has put aside the smallest portion of its looming pensions obligations. While certain changes have been made to counter the pension funding deficit, including Governor Quinn’s hotly contested