In the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic and the far reaching and drastic measures implemented in numerous countries around the world, we are receiving an increasing number of insolvency and restructuring enquiries from our clients.

As previously reported, the UK Government has announced that it will urgently bring forward proposed reforms to the corporate insolvency regime, to give "breathing space" to companies in financial difficulty as a result of Covid-19. The proposed reforms, based on a consultation in 2018, include new restructuring and temporary moratorium procedures.

This briefing looks at the measures being taken by the Singapore government to support businesses and meet the challenges posed by Covid-19, with the introduction of the Covid-19 (Temporary Measures) Act 2020 (the Act)¹, and the Registrar's Circular No, 4 of 2020: Updates on Measures Relating to Covid-19², focussing on:

In what is good news for many organisations struggling with the economic challenges posed by Covid-19, the UK's Business Secretary announced over the weekend that the government will push forward with various reforms to the English insolvency laws; in effect fast tracking reforms that were under discussion back in 2018.

In what is believed to be the first case to deal with the question, any doubt as to whether the entirety of the duties owed by directors continue post administration or creditors’ voluntary liquidation (CVL) has been firmly laid to rest by the Insolvency and Companies Court’s (ICC) decision of ICC Judge Barber in Hunt (as Liquidator of Systems Building Services Group Limited) v Mitchie and Others [2020]¹.

The appeal decision of the Full Federal Court in AIG Australia Limited v Kaboko Mining Limited confirmed that an insolvency exclusion was not triggered where a cause of action by a company against its former directors did not contain allegations of insolvency, notwithstanding that the directors’ actions arguably led to the company’s insolvency.

Background

In February, following oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court in Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, we wrote about the hugely important trademark law issue presented by this case, namely: If a bankrupt trademark licensor “rejects” an executory trademark license agreement, does that bankruptcy action terminate the licensee’s right to continue using the licensed trademark for the remaining term of the agreement?

Oral argument before the Supreme Court was held on February 20 in the much-watched and even more intensely discussed trademark dispute Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC. The case presents the difficult and multifaceted question: Does bankruptcy law insulate the right of a trademark licensee to continue using the licensed mark despite the bankrupt trademark licensor’s decision to “reject” the remaining term of the trademark license?

In December 2018, NSW building certifier Watson Oldco entered into voluntary administration. The AFR reports that administrators have attributed the move largely to the result of uninsured exposure to potential claims arising from buildings with combustible cladding. Although there were no known claims against Watson Oldco, it was reported that there was uninsured exposure which led to the decision to place the company into voluntary administration.

The decision in Kaboko Mining Limited v Van Heerden (No 3)1 highlights the importance of considering carefully both the pleaded causes of action, as well as the underlying facts of a claim, to determine whether it ‘arises out of, is based upon or attributable to’ a particular event or circumstance that could trigger an exclusion.

Background