The Bottom Line
The Bottom Line
Australia’s corporate insolvency laws are in a process of significant change.
The latest proposed reform concerns the controversial practice of “phoenixing”. In recent months and years, phoenixing has attracted attention from a wide band of Australian regulators.
The Phoenixing Bill
The Bottom Line
On Jan. 19, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacated a bankruptcy court decision awarding Ultra Petroleum Corp. noteholders $201 million in make-whole payments and $186 million in post-petition interest. Under the note agreement, upon a bankruptcy filing, the issuer is obligated for a make-whole amount equal to the discounted value of the remaining scheduled payments (including principal and interest that would be due after prepayment) less the principal amount of the notes.
The Bottom Line
The Bottom Line
In one of the first applications of the Supreme Court’s ruling on the scope of section 546(e) in Merit Management, Delaware Bankruptcy Court Judge Carey found that section 546(e)’s safe harbor did not apply to fraudulent transfers between two parties that were not financial institutions, even if the transaction passed through financial intermediaries.
What Happened
The Bottom Line
In In re ENNIA Caribe Holding N.V., 18-12908 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Dec. 20, 2018), a bankruptcy court in the Southern District of New York recognized a foreign insurance company’s rehabilitation proceeding in Curaçao as a “foreign main proceeding,” pursuant to Chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code, over objections from the insurance company’s nondebtor parent company. In doing so, the court examined, among other things, what is required for a “collective proceeding” in a foreign insolvency.
What Happened
Overview
The perception of Australia as a relatively “risky” place to sit on a board, arises in no small part from the insolvent trading prohibition in section 588G of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and how it interacts with general directors’ duties.[1]