A paradigm shift is underway in Australian corporate restructuring.
Bold reforms are already in force which have changed the landscape for companies, their directors, creditors and other stakeholders.
From 1 July 2018, termination and other rights against companies in administration and other restructuring-related procedures will be unenforceable under the ipso facto reform.
Regulations are expected to have significant effect on the scope of the stay – these regulations are yet to be published.
Since the decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales in Re Independent [2016] NSWSC 106, there has been doubt about whether receivers and liquidators should apply the statutory priorities afforded to employee entitlements in sections 433, 561 and 556 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act) when distributing the assets of companies who have conducted their businesses as trusts.
In January 2018, the Aviation Working Group (“AWG”)1 as part of its review of closing opinion practice, released a revised Form of Cape Town Convention Closing Opinion. The aim of the review was to provide further guidance and consistency in the approach legal practitioners adopt in respect of Cape Town and the State of Registry Jurisdiction.
The AWG was founded in 1994, with stated aims of contributing to the development and acceptance of policies and laws that:
facilitate advanced international aviation financing and leasing, and
In a significant decision for the insurance industry, the Federal Court of Australia has granted leave to shareholders to bring a direct action against a company’s insurers where the (insured) company was in liquidation. This is one of the earliest cases to make use of the new Civil Liability (Third Party Claims Against Insurers) Act 2017 (NSW) (Third Party Claim Act), and provides some useful guidance for the industry on how this new legislation will be applied.
The decision impacts plaintiff lawyers, policyholders and insurers alike. Importantly:
The Supreme Court recently heard arguments in a patent dispute case, Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC. Although the case has nothing to do with bankruptcy law, its outcome could have a substantial impact on bankruptcy practice and litigation.
The Supreme Court two years ago ruled in Baker Botts v. Asarco that bankruptcy professionals entitled to compensation from a debtor’s bankruptcy estate had no statutory right to be compensated for time spent defending against objections to their fee applications.
上一篇我们谈到诉讼主体的确定问题，本文将从担保的视角对债券持有人的权利救济予以分析。
保证人单方出具《保证函》的效力
The Supreme Court recently granted certiorari in PEM Entities LLC v. Levin, in which it will decide whether federal or a state law should apply when a debt claim held by a debtor’s insider is sought to be recharacterized in bankruptcy as a capital contribution and treated as equity. The case raises important questions about the extent to which the commencement of a proceeding under the U.S.
In the event of a contractual counterparty going into liquidation, whether or not a trade counterparty may claim set-off against debts owed to the insolvent counterparty can dramatically affect the commercial position of the account debtor. This was recently highlighted in the decision of Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd v Forge Group Power Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) (Receivers and Managers appointed) [2017] WASC (2 June 2017).
What does this mean for you?
In Millenium Lab Holdings, Delaware District Court Judge Leonard Stark, on an appeal from a bankruptcy court order confirming a plan of reorganization, recently upheld a challenge to the bankruptcy court’s constitutional authority to release claims against non-debtor third parties under the plan.