Innovations to the Act in late 2015 seek to modernize and simplify collective proceedings in OHADA member states.

After years of delay, on 1 August 2016, the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 2010 will be brought into force in the United Kingdom, making it easier for a party with a claim against an insolvent business to bring the claim directly against the insurer of that business.

A possible alternative to the freezing injunction.

A judgment has recently provided helpful guidance on a creative form of injunction. The “notification order” compels a defendant to give notice to the claimant before disposing or dealing with its assets. This notification order is less onerous than a freezing injunction, and although it usually accompanies the freezing injunction, in this case, the order was issued as standalone relief. The notification would alert the claimant to apply for a freezing injunction prior to dissipation of any assets.

On 1 June 2016 the Victorian Court of Appeal delivered its judgment in Timbercorp Finance Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) (Timbercorp) v Collins (Collins) and Tomes (Tomes) [2016] VSCA 128, the latest in a string of Timbercorp cases.

The latest decision was preceded by a class action which went all the way to the High Court in which the investors lost their claim against Timbercorp for misleading representations.

Decision establishes framework for future rulings that covenants in midstream agreements do not run with the land.

On February 17, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) proposed a joint rule that would govern the resolution of large broker-dealers that are designated as “covered financial companies” under the Orderly Liquidation Authority (OLA) provisions (Title II) of the Dodd-Frank Act.

By its much anticipated yet hardly surprising judgment in Forge Group Power Pty Limited (in liquidation)(receivers and managers appointed) v General Electric International Inc  [2016] NSWSC 52, the Supreme Court of New South Wales has again shone a bright light on the importance of perfection of security interests under the PPSA, and the dramatic consequences that follow for failing to do so by reason of the PPSA vesting rules.  Indeed, the failure to register in this case has had multi-million dollar consequences.

The decision in Adhesive Pro Pty Ltd v Blackrock Supplies Pty Ltd [2015] ACTSC 288 reinforces the strict rule that an application to set aside a statutory demand must be filed and served within 21 days of receiving the demand.

Statutory demands are a common and useful tool for many unsecured creditors seeking payment of a debt.  Non-compliance with a statutory demand results in a presumption of insolvency and the possibility that a creditor can apply to wind up a company debtor.

Most companies do not own all of the intellectual property (IP) rights that their businesses rely on. It is not uncommon for some portion of a company’s IP rights to be in-licensed from other persons or entities under a license agreement. In such cases, the licensee has contractual rights to use the IP that is the subject of an in-license but not full ownership of such IP. In the day-to-day operations of a company, the distinction between owned IP rights and in-licensed IP rights can easily get lost.

The Insolvency Law Reform Bill 2015 has been introduced into Parliament as part of the Australian Government's strategy to modernise and strengthen the nation's insolvency and corporate reorganisation framework.