When a company becomes financially distressed, directors are often required to act quickly and decisively. However, directors may at the same time find themselves held back by the requirements of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the “Corporations Act”) or their company constitution.

What is now known as the ‘ipso facto regime’ was introduced by the Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Enterprise Incentives No. 2) Act 2017 in September 2017, which inserted a number of provisions that provided for a stay on the exercise of certain ipso facto contractual rights in the context of corporate restructuring and insolvency procedures.

What is an ipso facto clause?

In Short

The Situation: Insolvency officeholders increasingly find their investigations into a company's affairs frustrated by the comingling of records on a "group" server. Claims to privilege by other group entities (or even third parties) are then advanced as an obstacle to delivering company records to the officeholder, leading to expensive and logistically complex inspection and review processes that can be a burden on insolvent estates.

Corporate Australia is bracing for the long-awaited surge in insolvencies. As Australia’s largest creditor and, according to creditor reporting bureau Creditor Watch, responsible for the greatest number of company windups prior to the pandemic in 2019, the ATO can fairly be described as an influential, if not dominant, player in the restructuring and turnaround space and in corporate Australia more broadly.

The ATO effect

Even before chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code was enacted in 2005 to govern cross-border bankruptcy proceedings, the enforceability of a foreign court order approving a restructuring plan that modified or discharged U.S. law-governed debt was well recognized under principles of international comity. The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York recently reaffirmed this concept in In re Modern Land (China) Co., Ltd., 641 B.R. 768 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2022).

Contents:

As discussed in previous installments of this White Paper series, the Lummis-Gillibrand Responsible Financial Innovation Act (the “Bill”)¹ proposes a comprehensive statutory and regulatory framework in an effort to bring stability to the digital asset market. One area of proposed change relates to how digital assets and digital asset exchanges would be treated in bankruptcy. If enacted, the Bill would significantly alter the status quo from a bankruptcy perspective

OVERVIEW OF DIGITAL ASSETS IN BANKRUPTCY

This article was first published by the Financier World Wide.

Largely due to the worldwide economic turmoil caused by the global coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, recent years have seen global business disruption on a grand scale – a scorched corporate landscape ripe for distressed mergers and acquisitions (M&A) practitioners to pick over.

Trends in traditional M&A activity

This 2022 review provides an overview of recent Australian Restructuring and Insolvency activity along with the laws, their application and recent trends and development in restructuring and insolvency activity.

Chapters:

Courts disagree over whether a foreign bankruptcy case can be recognized under chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code if the foreign debtor does not reside or have assets or a place of business in the United States. In 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit staked out its position on this issue in Drawbridge Special Opportunities Fund LP v. Barnet (In re Barnet), 737 F.3d 238 (2d Cir. 2013), ruling that the provision of the Bankruptcy Code requiring U.S. residency, assets, or a place of business applies in chapter 15 cases as well as cases filed under other chapters.