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.

New York Bankruptcy Judge Sean H. Lane determined that the Australian debtors in a Chapter 15 foreign recognition proceeding satisfied the U.S. property requirements of Section 109(a) of the Bankruptcy Code on the basis of attorney retainers and claims against insiders located in the U.S.

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.

On February 27, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court resolved a circuit split under the Bankruptcy Code and determined that where funds passed through financial institutions acting as payment conduits, where the ultimate transfer sought to be avoided was not the type of transaction protected by the safe harbor provisions of the Bankruptcy Code, the safe harbor provisions of Bankruptcy Code Section 546(e), shielding transfers through financial institutions from avoidance actions by bankruptcy trustees, was inapplicable.

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

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.

The bankruptcy court in In re Ocean Rig UDW Inc., 17-10736 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Aug. 24, 2017) determined that a decision by an offshore drilling company from the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) to shift its Center of Main Interest (COMI) to the Cayman Islands prior to defaulting on bonds and initiating reorganization proceedings there and in the U.S., was “prudent.” The Court held that the change offered the debtors the best opportunity for successful restructuring and survival under difficult financial conditions and did not preclude U.S.

On September 18, 2017, the iconic US-based retailer Toys “R” Us filed for Chapter 11 in the US Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in front of Judge Keith L. Phillips. The company filed twenty-five entities, explaining that its $5.3 billion debt obligations and operational issues had led to the need for reorganization.

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

In a recent landmark decision, Re Boart Longyear Limited [2017] NSWSC 567, the New South Wales Supreme Court granted orders to convene creditor meetings for two schemes of arrangement in respect of the restructuring plan of Boart Longyear Limited.