In July 2019, we published a briefing on the recommendations proposed by the Airline Insolvency Review’s final report,1 which was commissioned by the UK Government to assess the existing protections available to passengers in the event of a future airline insolvency and make recommendations to ensure taxpayers no longer foot the repatriation bill.
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
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, Mexican courts were closed for the past few months and only received urgent cases.
The COVID-19 pandemic has had a negative impact on the Mexican economy. As a result, Mexican courts have seen a rise in insolvency cases, which are not as common in Mexico compared to other jurisdictions, such as the United States. The rise of insolvency cases imposes new challenges to Mexican courts and Mexico’s laws.
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).
In a recent decision, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held that claim disallowance issues under Section 502(d) of the Bankruptcy Code "travel with" the claim, and not with the claimant. Declining to follow a published district court decision from the same federal district, the bankruptcy court found that section 502(d) applies to disallow a transferred claim regardless of whether the transferee acquired its claim through an assignment or an outright sale. See In re Firestar Diamond, 615 B.R. 161 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2020).
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.