An important aspect of the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act, 48 U.S.C. §§ 2101–2241 ("PROMESA")—the temporary stay of creditor collection efforts that came into effect upon its enactment—was the subject of a ruling handed down by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. In Peaje Investments LLC v. García-Padilla, 845 F.3d 505 (1st Cir. 2017), the First Circuit affirmed in part and vacated in part a lower court order denying two motions for relief from the PROMESA stay.

On 28 March 2017, the Australian Federal Government (Government) released draft legislation in relation to two major reforms intended to encourage turnaround, restructuring and business rescue.

The draft legislation introduces a safe harbour for directors from liability for insolvent trading, and stays the operation of ipso facto clauses where a company enters into administration or proposes a scheme of arrangement.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Singapore Government has just passed the Companies (Amendment) Bill 13/2017 (the Bill), which contains major changes to Singapore’s restructuring and insolvency laws. As planned, these changes are expected to come into effect at the latest by the second quarter of 2017,1 and will be a major shake-up to the restructuring landscape of the region.

On 1 February 2017, the Supreme Court of Singapore and the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware announced that they will formally implement the Guidelines for Communication and Cooperation between Courts in Cross-border Insolvency Matters ("Guidelines").

On 31 January 2017, Brereton J of the Supreme Court of New South Wales in In the matter of OneSteel Manufacturing Pty Limited (administrators appointed) [2017] NSWSC 21 declared that the interests of Alleasing Pty Limited as lessor of a certain crusher and spare parts had vested in OneSteel Manufacturing Pty Limited, effectively giving ownership of the leased assets to the insolvent estate to be realised for the benefit of creditors generally after the company mistakenly registered the financing statements against Onesteel’s ABN rather than its ACN.

Only a handful of courts have had an opportunity to address the ramifications of rejection of a trademark license since the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit handed down its landmark decision in Sunbeam Prods., Inc. v. Chicago Am. Manuf., LLC, 686 F.3d 372 (7th Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 790 (2012). A bankruptcy appellate panel for the First Circuit recently did so in Mission Prod. Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology LLC (In re Tempnology LLC), 559 B.R. 809 (B.A.P. 1st Cir. 2016).

Singapore’s Ministry of Law has unveiled significant proposed changes aimed at revising Singapore’s restructuring and insolvency laws and developing Singapore into a regional debt restructuring hub.¹

IN BRIEF

Draft legislation unveiled

In Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Ams. v. Large Private Beneficial Owners (In re Tribune Co. Fraudulent Conveyance Litig.), 818 F.3d 98 (2d Cir. 2016), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that the “safe harbor” under section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code for settlement payments and for payments made in connection with securities contracts preempted claims under state law by creditors to avoid as fraudulent transfers pre-bankruptcy payments made to shareholders in connection with a leveraged buyout (“LBO”) of the debtor.

In Brief

For the first time, a court has adopted the ‘centre of main interest’ (COMI) as grounds at common law to recognise foreign insolvency proceedings.

The decision earlier this year by the High Court of Singapore (the Court) recognised a Japanese bankruptcy trustee appointed to companies incorporated in the British Virgin Islands (BVI):

On June 13, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld lower court rulings declaring unconstitutional a 2014 Puerto Rico law, portions of which mirrored chapter 9 of the Bankruptcy Code, that would have allowed the commonwealth’s public instrumentalities to restructure a significant portion of Puerto Rico’s bond debt (widely reported to be as much as $72 billion). In Commonwealth v. Franklin Cal. Tax-Free Tr., 2016 BL 187308 (U.S.