In UDA Land Sdn Bhd v Puncak Sepakat Sdn Bhd [2020] MLJU 892, the High Court was required to determine whether an award should be set aside because the sole arbitrator (“Arbitrator”) wrongly concluded that it had no jurisdiction to determine a counterclaim and insolvency set-off raised in the arbitration. The High Court set aside the award on the basis that the Arbitrator made an error of law in finding that it had no jurisdiction to hear the counterclaim and set-off.

Background

El pasado día 1 de septiembre entró en vigor el Real Decreto Legislativo 1/2020, de 5 de mayo, por el que se aprueba el texto refundido de la Ley Concursal (TRLC). De este modo, la Ley 22/2003, de 9 de julio, Concursal queda derogada casi en su totalidad.

Según se establece en el Preámbulo del TRLC, este texto refundido se ha creado ante la imprescindible necesidad de reordenación, clarificación y armonización tanto de la Ley Concursal como de las normas que con rango de ley que modificaron la misma.

Royal Legislative Decree 1/2020, of 5 May, which approves the Recast Spanish Insolvency Law (Texto Refundido de la Ley Concursal, or TRLC) entered into effect on 1 September. As a result, the former Insolvency Law 22/2003, of 9 July, has been derogated almost in its entirety.

According to the TRLC’s Preamble, Spanish insolvency legislation has been amended given the need to reorder, clarify and harmonise the former Insolvency Law and the provisions that have since amended it.

The Australian Federal Government has announced the temporary amendments to insolvency and corporations laws will be extended until 31 December 2020 in light of the continuing challenges of COVID-19.

In brief

1. Introduction 

2020年の初めに新型コロナウイルス感染症（COVID-19）パンデミックが広がり始めてから、その拡散を抑えるために全米の州知事が事業の閉鎖を命じる行政命令を出しました。多くの事業主が、事業閉鎖期間の賃料の支払義務から逃れるための救済手段を探ろうとして賃貸借契約書、特にその不可抗力(force majeure)条項を調べました。事業体やその弁護士は、今まで経験したことのない性質のパンデミックと相次ぐ事業閉鎖を目の当たりにしていますが、そのような重要事項の指針となる判例はわずかしかありませんでした。しかし、イリノイ州J.B.プリツカー知事がCOVID-19危機の対応策として、レストランに対して同施設で食事をする客に料理を出す(on-premises consumption)ことを禁じる行政命令を出した結果1、 Hitz Restaurant Group事件において、イリノイ州北部地区連邦破産裁判所は、近時、賃貸借契約書に含まれる不可抗力条項に基づき、テナント（賃借人）‐債務者の賃料支払義務は一部免除されると判示しました。

The long-running saga between Shandong Chenming Paper Holdings (“Shandong Chenming“) and Arjowiggins HKK2 Ltd (“Arjowiggins“) has continued with the Court of Appeal handing down its judgment on an appeal against a lower court judgment which had dismissed Shandong Chenming’s application to injunct Arjowiggins from presenting a winding-up petition against Shandong Chenming (Shandong Chenming Paper Holdings Limited v. Arjowiggins HKK2 Limited [2020] HKCA 670).

The High Court has expedited a trial at which it would be determined whether luxury car manufacturer McLaren Group could obtain the release of certain security for the benefit of its senior noteholders, failing which a financial restructuring which was contingent on that release could not be implemented: McLaren Holdings Ltd v US Bank Trustees Ltd [2020] EWHC 1892 (Ch). The court concluded that, absent determination of the proceedings within one month, McLaren Group would have no choice but to enter an insolvency process and that this justified expedition in this case.

概要

Executive Summary