On 20 June 2018, the Indian Government released a suggested draft chapter on cross-border insolvency to be included into the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code). This addresses a missing link in the ambitious reforms of the Indian insolvency framework and is to be welcomed.

Australia’s new ipso facto regime is now in effect. It stays the enforcement of contractual rights triggered upon the entry of a corporate counterparty into certain restructuring and insolvency processes. The regime will affect a broad range of contracts entered into on or after 1 July 2018; however, certain contracts and contractual rights have been excluded from the operation of the stay pursuant to statutory instruments which have just been issued.

On 16 April 2018, the Australian Federal Government (Government) launched a public consultation on proposed exceptions to the recently enacted stay on ipso facto clauses. These exceptions, which will be contained in a forthcoming declaration and regulations, will be critical to the operation of the new ipso facto regime, and its impact on stakeholders.

In January 2018 the English High Court considered whether it had jurisdiction under the Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations 2006 (CBIR) to extend a temporary stay on the commencement of enforcement action in respect of English law debt obligations owed by a foreign debtor so that in effect the stay became permanent, or whether such a permanent stay would breach the long established rule in Gibbs[1](whic

On 9 November 2017, in a rare example of a contested recognition hearing, His Honour Judge Paul Matthews granted recognition of Agrokor’s extraordinary administration (EA) as a foreign main proceeding under the Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations 2006 (CBIR).

In the first judgment under Singapore’s new ‘super priority’ DIP financing regime, the Singapore High Court declined to grant priority status to funds to be advanced to the Attilan Group.

The Singapore regime is the first to import US Chapter 11-style DIP priority funding mechanisms into a jurisdiction with primarily English-law based corporate law and insolvency regimes.

The judgment discusses how Singapore provisions align with established principles under US Bankruptcy Code provisions and case law.

On 24 October 2017 the Court of Appeal handed down its decision in what has become known as the Waterfall IIA and B litigation (Burlington Loan Management Limited and others v Lomas and others [2017] EWCA Civ 1462). The decision also covered an appeal of one point from the High Court Waterfall IIC decision.

In Re Lehman Brothers Europe Ltd (in administration) [2017] EWHC 2031 (Ch) a proposal by joint administrators to appoint a director to a company already in administration (LBEL), in order to distribute surplus funds to its sole member (Lehman Brothers Holdings plc (LBH)), as opposed to a creditor, was held to be legally permissible, as well as pragmatic and beneficial.

In a decision that will be welcomed both by second-ranking secured creditors and by administrators, the Court of Appeal recently held that a second-ranking floating charge (SRFC) was still capable of being a qualifying floating charge for the purposes of Schedule B1 of the Insolvency Act 1986 despite the earlier crystallisation of a prior-ranking floating charge (PRFC). In addition, the SRFC was capable of being enforceable notwithstanding the fact that there were no assets of the chargor which were not covered by the PRFC.

The New South Wales Court of Appeal has, in a decision that has surprised many practitioners, dismissed an appeal which challenged the composition of classes in the creditors’ scheme of arrangement involving Boart Longyear Limited.1