The Treasurer has announced major proposed reforms to Australia’s insolvency framework aimed at facilitating the restructuring of small to medium businesses (MSMEs) and streamlining their liquidation if rescue is not achievable (Reforms). The Reforms are intended to come into effect from 1 January 2021, after the suite of current insolvency protections introduced to address the economic impact of COVID-19, expire on 31 December 2020.

This week, the Third Circuit issued an opinion in NJDEP v. American Thermoplastics Corp et al., No. 18-2865, which adds a new wrinkle on CERCLA section 113(f)(2), which bars non-settling parties from bringing claims for contribution against settling parties, while also placing new emphasis on CERCLA section 104 cooperative agreements in the context of settlements.

The Australian Government has announced that the operation of temporary COVID-19 relief measures for businesses in the hope of aiding distressed companies and preventing further economic breakdown will be extended until 31 December 2020.[1]

In its recent judgment involving the PAS Group of companies[1], the Federal Court held that rent payable by the PAS Group during an extension of the period in which an administrator had been excused from personal liability (Standstill Period) is an expense properly incurred by a ‘relevant authority in carrying on the company’s business’ and is therefore a priority debt under s 556(1)(a) of the Corporations

Background

On 26 June 2020, the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act (CIG Act) came into force which introduced fundamental changes to the UK’s company and insolvency laws which not only provide temporary assistance to companies and their directors during the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) crisis, but on a permanent basis have significantly bolstered the UK’s restructuring tool kit. Amongst other matters, the CIG Act implements measures contained in the UK Government's consultation on Insolvency and Corporate Governance which concluded in August 2018.

A comparison of the new Dutch Scheme and the new UK Restructuring Plan.

Introduction

A comparison of the new Dutch Scheme and the new UK Restructuring Plan.

Introduction

The Supreme Court of New South Wales has helpfully given guidance to the liquidators of the RCR Tomlinson Group on a number of unsettled questions that have challenged insolvency practitioners (particularly liquidators of construction companies) when assessing whether certain intangible rights and assets are circulating assets.

The questions include:

In Mexico, all a debtor’s assets are subject to account for the performance of its obligations, except for those assets which, pursuant to law, are inalienable or cannot be attached.1 When a debtor is unable to pay its debts as they become due, it falls into insolvency which is an economic phenomenon with financial, social and legal consequences. When a debtor is unable to pay its debts as they become due, the Mexican legal system provides a mechanism to address the collective satisfaction of the claims with the assets of the debtor.

This week, the Federal Court published judgments in three unfair preference claims brought by the liquidators of the Gunns Group. We acted for the liquidators in each proceeding.