The global economy has suffered a massive hit from the COVID-19 pandemic. The collective impact of disruptions to supply chains and falling consumer demand have caused many businesses to suffer varying degrees of financial stress with some having to recapitalise or refinance. While some M&A transactions on foot prior to the onset of the pandemic have been disrupted or delayed, the impact of the pandemic will open up opportunities for cashed-up funds and other buyers to, in time, take advantage of strategic and investment opportunities presented by the pandemic.

The global economy has suffered a massive hit from the COVID-19 pandemic. The collective impact of disruptions to supply chains and falling consumer demand have caused many businesses to suffer varying degrees of financial stress with some having to recapitalise or refinance. Mergers and acquisitions (M&A) activity has been brought to a virtual standstill with many deals halted or delayed.

On 23 March 2020, in response to the increasing economic threat that the Coronavirus poses, the Commonwealth Government introduced the Coronavirus Economic Response Package Omnibus Bill 2020 (Economic Response Bill). The Economic Response Bill proposes various amendments to the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act), with the objective of providing temporary relief for financially distressed businesses and promoting business continuity in the current climate.

The requirement for strict technical compliance with notice provisions has been extended beyond guarantees, particularly where there is some immediate and material consequence that flows from the notice being issued.

1 2018 GTLAW.COM.AU 2018 NEW IPSO FACTO LAWS WHAT DOES IT MEAN FOR YOU? WHAT DOES IT MEAN FOR YOU? The Federal Government’s new ipso facto laws, which were introduced by the Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Enterprise Incentives No. 2) Act 2017 (Cth), impose an automatic stay on the enforcement of ipso facto clauses in certain contracts entered into on or after 1 July 2018. In this insight, we summarise the new laws and take a closer look at how the reforms affect particular types of transactions.

In Coosemans Miami v. Arthur (In re Arthur), the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida held last week that individuals in control of a PACA trust may still receive a bankruptcy discharge of debts arising from their breach of such PACA trust. A link to the opinion is here.

The Fifth Circuit recently issued an opinion that federal bankruptcy law does not prohibit a bona fide shareholder from exercising its right to vote against a bankruptcy filing notwithstanding that such shareholder was also an unsecured creditor. This represents the latest successful attempt to preclude bankruptcy through golden shares or bankruptcy blocking provisions in corporate authority documents.

On June 14, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a revised opinion that held that Federal law does not prevent a bona fide shareholder from exercising its right to vote against a bankruptcy petition just because it is also an unsecured creditor. In re Franchise Servs. of N. Am., Inc., 891 F.3d 198, 203 (5th Cir. 2018), as revised (June 14, 2018).

Weird things happen in bankruptcy court. All you high-falutin Chapter 11 jokers out there, cruise down to the bankruptcy motions calendar one day.

Bankruptcy courts have authority to hold in civil contempt one who refuses to comply with a bankruptcy court order, including incarceration and/or daily fines until the offender complies.[1] But when does civil contempt[2] cross into criminal contempt, which is punitive and outside