In this note, we provide a high-level overview of key restructuring cases from last year in the US, Asia Pacific and Australia and consider the outlook in 2024 for restructuring transactions.
US
With increased stress in global, domestic, and regional economies, the number of Australian businesses at risk of bankruptcy is approaching a three-year high.
The Insolvency Practice Schedule (Corporations) (Practice Schedule) was introduced in 2015 via the Insolvency Law Reform Bill 2015. The Practice Schedule was introduced together with the Insolvency Practice Schedule (Bankruptcy) with the intention of providing specific rules to aid in the handling of personal bankruptcies and corporate external administration.
The new year has seen a rapid pace being set in terms of anticipated and actual legislative, regulatory and common law changes across Australia’s restructuring and insolvency regimes. The federal government’s inquiry into restructuring and bankruptcy laws is ongoing against a backdrop of sustained monetary policy interventions.
Insolvency practitioners (IPs) often occupy quasi-judicial offices which, among other things, require them to, assess and adjudicate on competing claims, take coercive and enforcement actions and complete potentially contentious transactions. They must discharge their legal and equitable duties whilst maintaining objectivity and, whilst recognising and appropriately balancing the interests of a diverse range of stakeholders.
External administrators often occupy quasi-judicial offices which, among other things, require them to:
The Hastie Group Ltd. (liquidators appointed), and its related entities, fell into external administration on 28 May 2012.
The economic landscape continues to remain challenging, or, in some cases, looks to be getting worse, thereby impacting trading conditions across borders. It is likely that in most jurisdictions, trading conditions will worsen before they stabilise and, ultimately, improve.
This article forms part of our litigation funding series and discusses a key decision that has the potential to significantly support the due diligence efforts of litigation funders in external administration contexts.
The Supreme Court in Sevilleja v Marex Financial Ltd [2020] UKSC 31 has brought much needed clarity to the legal basis and scope of the so-called ‘reflective loss’ principle. The effect of the decision is a ‘bright line’ rule that bars claims by shareholders for loss in value of their shares arising as a consequence of the company having suffered loss, in respect of which the company has a cause of action against the same wrong-doer.