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.

Germany has notoriously broad voidability laws. As a rule of thumb, any payment by a third party has high voidability risks if the third party has no obligation to make the payment under the contract. Such payments qualify as incongruent (3 months hardening period, very few further requirements) and often qualify as gratuitous (4 years hardening period, without any further requirements). A recent decision of the German High Court has stirred hope that the Court may give some leeway to cash pool payments by group companies.

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).

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

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”).

Der Bundestag hat am 8. November 2018 die von der Restrukturierungsbranche ersehnte gesetzliche Regelung zur Steuerbefreiung von Sanierungsgewinnen endlich auf den Weg gebracht. Es wird erwartet, dass auch der Bundesrat in Kürze seine Zustimmung erteilt.

Die Neuregelung:

The recently published report on the evaluation of the ESUG, the German law to facilitate the restructuring of companies, states that the changes introduced by the ESUG have been received positively overall, but that there is still room for improvement in many areas. Should the EU Restructuring Directive actually be adopted at the beginning of 2019, the legislator would have the opportunity to improve the ESUG legislation and implement the EU requirements for pre-insolvency restructuring proceedings in one bill.

Der frisch veröffentliche Bericht zur Evaluation des ESUG stellt fest, dass die durch das ESUG eingeführten Änderungen insgesamt positiv aufgenommen worden sind, aber an vielen Stellen noch Verbesserungsbedarf besteht. Sollte tatsächlich Anfang 2019 die EU-Restrukturierungsrichtlinie verabschiedet werden, hätte der Gesetzgeber die Möglichkeit in einem (großen) Wurf, die ESUG Regelungen zu verbessern und die Anforderungen der EU an ein vorinsolvenzliches Sanierungsverfahren umzusetzen.

Singapore’s new (the Omnibus Bill) was passed by parliament on 1 October 2018 and is expected to come into force later this year or in early 2019.

The Omnibus Bill, which was introduced to parliament on 10 September 2018, consolidates Singapore's corporate and personal insolvency and restructuring laws into a single enactment. It also generally updates the insolvency legislation and introduces a significant number of new provisions, particularly in respect of corporate insolvency.

On 12 September 2018, the High Court of Australia (High Court) gave judgment in the case of Mighty River International Limited v Hughes (Mighty River).1 In that decision, the High Court (by a 3:2 majority) held that a “holding” deed of company arrangement (DOCA) is valid.

In brief