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 a recent decision in the Supreme Court of NSW[1], Rees J set aside a liquidator’s bid to publicly examine two senior officers of the National Rugby League (NRL), finding that examination summonses issued by the liquidator were an abuse of process and the entire liquidation process was a contrivance in order to exert commercial pressure on the NRL.

The Coronavirus Economic Response Package Omnibus Bill 2020 (Coronavirus Response Bill) was passed on 23 March 2020 and received Royal Assent on 24 March 2020 following the Federal Government’s announcements made between 12 and 22 March 2020 of its economic response to the spread of the coronavirus pandemic.

The Coronavirus Response Bill provides, amongst other legislative amendments, for temporary changes of 6 months’ duration to Australian insolvency and corporations laws to assist in managing the sudden economic shock resulting from COVID-19.

In its recent decision in the ongoing Solar Shop litigation,[1] the Full Federal Court established two key principles which will have significant ongoing implications for the conduct of unfair preference claims:

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.

In Carrello,^[1] the Federal Court granted a warrant under section 530C of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the Act) allowing the liquidator of Drilling Australia Pty Ltd (the Company) to search and seize property, books and records located in storage containers belonging to the Company.

The Federal Court has considered whether a deed of company arrangement (DoCA) binds a regulator. The case involved an application by the Fair Work Ombudsman (FWO) for leave to proceed against a company in liquidation. The Court rejected the company’s argument that the FWO’s claims were extinguished by the DoCA and granted the FWO leave to pursue the claim. The outcome of the proceedings may impact the types of, and circumstances in which, claims by a regulator will not be extinguished by a DoCA.