Major restructuring destinations each provide distinct mechanisms for rehabilitating companies in distress. Our table sets out the similarities and differences in the processes available in Australia, England & Wales, Hong Kong, Singapore, and the USA.

Object of schemes of arrangement

This table provides a high level overview of the restructuring and insolvency processes available in Australia, comparing their purposes, effects, advantages and disadvantages.

Australia has a moratorium on the reliance upon ipso facto on insolvency (insolvency termination clauses in contracts which allow counter parties to terminate due to the fact of insolvency). It is complex and there are numerous carve-outs as outlined in the chapter.

"Ipso facto" clauses

Objective

In the context of an insolvent or near insolvent company, a receiver will be appointed, in the ordinary course, by a secured creditor seeking to have the assets which are the subject of its security realised to enable the payment of its claim. The appointment, most often, will be made under the agreement by which the security is granted or might be made under one of the property law statutes which authorise the appointment of a receiver by the court for the purpose of enforcing a security.

Object

Liquidation involves the collection of the company's assets, the realisation of those assets and the distribution of the proceeds of their sale to the company's creditors.

Process of appointing liquidator

Introduction

Informal workout agreements can renegotiate, delay, reduce or waive pre-existing debts owed by a company. For the debtor company, the main purpose of entering into an informal workout is to obtain agreements from its creditors to relinquish rights and refrain from enforcing certain debt covenants. The following are some commonly used informal workout mechanisms:

The “connections” of the chairman (“W”) of the debtor’s investment bank (“S”) to his family’s foundations do “not give rise to an actual, active conflict of any kind,” held a bankruptcy judge in the Southern District of New York on Oct. 17, 2022. In re SAS A.B., 2022 WL 10189110, *3 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Oct. 17, 2022). According to the court, it “is only through strained speculation [by the U.S. Trustee] that a potential issue can even be posited.” Accord, In re Harold & Williams Dev. Co., 977 F.2d 906 (4^th Cir.

“…[B]ecause Congress has not clearly abrogated the solvent-debtor exception,” the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that a reorganized solvent debtor had to “pay what it promised now that it is financially capable.” In re Ultra Petroleum Corp., 2022 WL 8025329, *1, (5^th Cir. Oct. 14, 2022) (2-1). Moreover, “given [the debtor’s ] solvency, post-petition interest is to be calculated according to the agreed-upon … contractual default rate …,” not the “much lower Federal Judgment Rate . . .,” held the court. Id.

The Third Circuit recently affirmed a bankruptcy court’s denial of a defendant’s motion to disqualify the plaintiff’s law firm in a large adversary proceeding, holding that it had not abused its discretion because the plaintiff law firm (W) had “complied with” American Bar Association Model Rule of Professional Conduct 1.10(a)(2). In re Maxus Energy Corp., 2022 WL 4113656, *4 (3d Cir. Sept. 9, 2022). According to the court, a lawyer (B) who “moved from” the defendant’s law firm “to the [plaintiff’s] firm” was not cause for W (the new firm) to be disqualified.