The Federal Court of Australia recently struck off an insolvency practitioner from the register of liquidators and restrained him for ten years for acting as an insolvency practitioner. The case concerns the conduct of David Iannuzi, who the Court found had "repeatedly fell short of the standards that would ordinarily be expected of him as a competent registered liquidator". The judgment sets out in detail the conduct that the Court found to be unsatisfactory and serves as a reminder of the standards expected of liquidators.

Background

On 25 September 2019, the Ukrainian Parliament brought into force law No. 112-IX (the “Law“). The purpose of the Law is to correct deficiencies in existing legislation and further promote out-of-court financial restructurings in the jurisdiction. The adoption of the Law comes in light of the high volume of non-performing loans which still exist in Ukraine.

The Law’s key provisions are as follows:

Financial institutions continue to prepare for the anticipated cessation of the publication of the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) benchmark after the end of 2021 and its replacement with “risk-free” overnight rates, including reformed SONIA (for sterling) and the new SOFR rate (for U.S. dollars). Transitioning affected financial products to the new rates and amending legacy books is a massive project for any sizable institution.

In a recent decision, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice recognised the English law schemes of arrangement of the Syncreon group under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act, RSC 1985, c C-36 (“CCAA“). This was the first time a Canadian court was asked to determine whether proceedings under Part 26 of the Companies Act 2006 (the “Companies Act“) could be recognised as “foreign proceedings” under Part IV of the CCAA.

The Hong Kong Court of Appeal has suggested that a previous Court decision may have overstepped the mark by suggesting that an arbitration clause in a client agreement should generally take precedence over a creditor's right to present a winding-up petition.

On 19 September 2019, Norris J handed downjudgment in the challenge brought by six landlords against the Debenhams Retail Limited (Debenhams) company voluntary arrangement (CVA) which was approved by 94.71% of Debenham’s unsecured creditors on 9 May 2019.

Today (19 September), following an expedited trial, the High Court rejected the application brought by affected landlords to challenge the CVA entered into by Debenhams Retail Limited.

The landlord applicants sought to challenge the CVA which closed stores and imposed rent reductions on landlords according to different categories. 'Category 5' landlords took the biggest hit with rents halved and early termination dates imposed. The CVA proposal was approved by Debenhams' creditors on 9 May 2019.

Five grounds were advanced by the landlords during the hearing:

The development of new powertrain technology; challenges within established markets, such as diesel emissions issues; and falls in automotive production – production in the United Kingdom has fallen during the last 12 consecutive months – have had a significant impact on the automotive and mobility industry.

It is well known that a company served with a statutory demand has 21 days to comply. If the recipient fails to pay the amount of the demand (or obtain a court order extending the period for compliance) within the period of 21 days after the demand is served, the creditor may rely on the failure as a basis to apply for the company to be wound up in insolvency. But what if the company pays, or seeks to pay, the amount of the statutory demand after the 21 day period has expired?

Like many areas of insolvency law, statutory demands have strict procedural requirements as to the timing by which documents must be served. But how is the passage of time calculated? If something is required to be done "21 days after" a document is served, is this intended to be inclusive or exclusive of the day the document was served? The Supreme Court of NSW recently grappled with this issue in Verimark Pty Ltd v Passiontree Velvet Pty Ltd [2019] NSWSC 455 and has provided clarity for lawyers and insolvency practitioners alike.