The Australian Federal Government has announced the temporary amendments to insolvency and corporations laws will be extended until 31 December 2020 in light of the continuing challenges of COVID-19.
In brief
The Australian Federal Government has now passed temporary amendments to insolvency and corporations laws in light of the challenges COVID-19 poses to many otherwise profitable and viable businesses.
The Australian Federal Government has announced today (22 March 2020) that it intends to make temporary amendments to insolvency and corporations laws in light of the challenges COVID-19 poses to many otherwise profitable and viable businesses.
In particular, the government intends to relieve directors from the risk of personal liability for insolvent trading, where the debts are incurred in the ordinary course of business.
The Australian Federal Government has announced today (22 March 2020) that it intends to make temporary amendments to insolvency and corporations laws in light of the challenges COVID-19 poses to many otherwise profitable and viable businesses.
In particular, the government intends to relieve directors from the risk of personal liability for insolvent trading, where the debts are incurred in the ordinary course of business.
On 22 August 2019, the Federal Court of Australia (FCA) held that it could make a request to the New Zealand High Court (NZHC) that there be a joint hearing of those courts in respect of applications relating to the pooling of various funds held by companies subject to Australian and New Zealand liquidations, respectively.
Such a ‘letter of request’ could be issued by the FCA to a foreign court in the context of an Australian insolvency process pursuant to section 581 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act).
Vesting orders have become one of the most powerful tools in an insolvency professional’s toolkit, providing a purchaser with the comfort that the encumbrances contributing to the debtor’s financial difficulties cannot follow to the new owner. In light of their importance, Canadian insolvency and banking professionals were understandably anxious when the Ontario Court of Appeal (the “OCA” or the “Court”) recently asked for submissions on whether receivership vesting orders can extinguish third party interests in land in the nature of a Gross Overriding Royalty (a “GOR”).1
In January, we wrote about a decision of Justice Watt of the Ontario Court of Appeal, which addressed the question of which appeal procedure must be followed in appeals of Orders made in proceedings constituted under both the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (the “BIA”) and the
In Swiss Cosmeceutics (Asia) Ltd [2019] HKCFI 336, Mr Justice Harris of the Hong Kong Court of First Instance declined to wind up a company despite it failing to establish a bona fide defence on substantial grounds. Mr Justice Harris commented on the difficulties presented by sporadic record keeping, and reiterated the principle that the burden of proof lies with the company to demonstrate a bona fide defence on substantial grounds, despite the existence of anomalies in the petitioner’s claim.
Facts
A recent decision of Justice Watt of the Ontario Court of Appeal definitively answers the question of which appeal procedure must be followed in appeals of Orders made in proceedings constituted under both the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (the “BIA”) and the Courts of Justice Act (the “CJA”). Justice Watt’s decision in Business Development Bank of Canada v. Astoria Organic Matters Ltd.
In a highly international cross-border restructuring, the High Court of Hong Kong has refused to assist the New York-based Chapter 11 trustee of a Singaporean subsidiary of the Cayman-incorporated Peruvian business China Fishery Group (“CFG”).