An all too typical fact pattern involves a small-time ne’er-do-well infringing on the rights of a much bigger corporation. When the corporation is forced to bring a lawsuit, the “little guy” infringer cries poverty and seeks a settlement. An oft-used tactic of corporations is to settle the matter quickly (and before too much in attorneys’ fees has been incurred) for a relatively modest sum (or even no money at all) while also including a mechanism by which any breach of the settlement agreement triggers the filing of an agreed judgment for a large sum of money.

Supply chains are facing a fresh barrage of challenges. There are an almost infinite variety of issues that can arise within the supply chain. Minor irritants that historically may have just made business a bit more difficult to transact can, in the current environment, cumulatively exert significant pressure. Additionally, an over reliance on a third party or failure to spot the weakest links in this chain could have a catastrophic impact on your business

In our latest insight, we consider how to identify pinch points in your supply chain and de-risk them.

Where a commercial property is sold by a receiver or insolvency practitioner (IP), VAT must be charged on the sale if the owner had exercised and properly notified an option to tax (OTT) in respect of the property. The IP acting on behalf of the seller needs to establish whether an OTT has been made and notified so that VAT is charged , if needed.  This can be difficult if company records are in disarray, directors of the insolvent company are non-cooperative and/or the IP or receiver has limited knowledge of the property and company.

In the tenth edition of Going concerns, Stephenson Harwood’s restructuring and insolvency team covers the innovative attempt by a distressed company to shut out low-valued creditors in a scheme of arrangement, the utility of the Singapore recognition of foreign insolvencies regime to assist international liquidations, and the factors which the Singapore Courts will consider when deciding whether to stay a bankruptcy application. It has been a pleasure preparing these articles over the past five years and a big thank you to our readers!

Content

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.

Following the sanctioning of the Good Box restructuring plan (RP) it seems the answer is yes. This might sound surprising to those familiar with schemes of arrangement, because that outcome is at odds with the long-standing decision in Re Savoy Hotels.

For those less familiar with schemes and scheme case law, the court declined to sanction the Savoy scheme because the company did not approve it, consequently the judge found that the court had no jurisdiction to sanction it.

Last month, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Massachusetts denied confirmation of a cannabis company employee’s Chapter 13 plan and dismissed his bankruptcy case. The employee, Scott H. Blumsack (the “Debtor”), is a general manager who is licensed in Massachusetts to work for Society Cannabis Co., a Massachusetts-licensed retailer, wholesaler, and producer of cannabis products.

On 7 December 2022, the European Commission unveiled a draft directive (2022/0408 (COD)) (the “Directive”) proposing to harmonise certain aspects of insolvency laws across the European Union[1].

In the current times of financial stress, a borrower seeking to renegotiate or refinance existing financing arrangements may be asked by its lender to enhance or refresh its security package through the grant of a new floating charge.

The question of whether a floating charge can be avoided due to section 245 of the Insolvency Act 1986 ("IA 1986") can arise in such a context.

Void floating charges under section 245 of the IA 1986

Are bankruptcy doors now opening for cannabis companies? A decision last week from a California bankruptcy court indicates perhaps so, at least for cannabis companies that are no longer operating.

Factual Background