Changes to Singapore's statutory regime for schemes of arrangement, which came into effect in May 2017, are aimed at placing Singapore on the map as an international debt restructuring hub.
Debtor in possession financing in the US has continued to rise, particularly in the context of retail insolvencies. In Australia, we have seen a number of high profile retail collapses in recent years. Can DIP financing solve the woes of struggling retailers in Australia?
Section 37A can be used by future, contingent and prospective creditors to recover assets, meaning the transferor need not be indebted at the time of the transfer.
Recovering assets from a debtor is usually done via the recovery provisions in the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) or theBankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth), but there is another option, at least in New South Wales, which offers creditors, insolvency practitioners and any prejudiced parties a useful alternative. A recent case demonstrates its advantages (Lardis v Lakis [2018] NSWCA 113; Clayton Utz acted for the successful creditor).
The two limbs of the defence to an unfair preference claim under section 588FG(1)(b) and (2)(b) of the Corporations Act have separate work to do.
In a useful decision for liquidators and the insolvency industry, the WA Court of Appeal has clarified the nature of the tests creditors need to satisfy to maintain a defence to a liquidator's unfair preference claim in section 588FG(1)(b) or (2)(b) of the Corporations Act (White & Templeton v ACN 153 152 731 Pty Ltd (in liq) & Anor [2018] WASCA 119).
The government action bar provides that a relator may not bring a False Claims Act (FCA) lawsuit “based upon allegations or transactions which are the subject of a civil suit or anadministrative civil money penalty proceeding in which the Government is already a party.” 31 U.S.C. § 3730(e)(3) (emphasis added). Recently, in Schagrin v. LDR Industries, LLC, No. 14 C 9125, 2018 WL 2332252 (N.D. Ill.
The new ipso facto regime applies to all contracts to be entered into on or after 1 July 2018. Businesses should now be carefully reviewing the effect of that regime on their contracts and whether any of their contracts may be exempt under the Corporations Amendment (Stay on Enforcing Certain Rights) Regulations 2018 published on 24 June 2018.
The types of contracts excluded from the new ipso facto stay
On May 25, 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed a district court decision finding that producer Sabine Oil and Gas Corp. could reject certain midstream gathering contracts in its bankruptcy case.i
The restructuring, distressed and debt market in Australia continues to evolve. We have a competitive debt market that constantly seeks out that next transaction. We have an environment of innovation with restructuring professionals seeking to push the boundaries of what may be possible within the current legislative framework, and we have changes to that framework with the introduction of Safe Harbour as a defence to insolvent trading and ipso facto reform which seeks to lock in contracts post-insolvency.
The Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the Bankruptcy Court) issued an opinion on April 9, 2018 recognizing and enforcing a scheme of arrangement that contained non-consensual releases of non-debtor subsidiary guarantors under chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code. The Bankruptcy Court held that, in certain situations, such non-debtor releases may be approved and enforced in chapter 15 proceedings based upon principles of comity, even where similar arrangements would be impermissible in a chapter 11 proceeding.
An important part of last year's package of amendments to the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) were the ipso facto reforms which will stay the exercise of certain contractual rights relating to a counterparty's insolvency or financial position. What, if any, contracts would be exempt from the stay has been a major question, not least for the construction industry.
This has now been answered, with the release of exposure drafts for public comment by May 11 2018 of the: