Insolvency legislation has been coming thick and fast in recent months, and this time it's pre pack sales to connected parties that are facing further scrutiny.
The concern is that the voluntary measures which were put in place a few years ago have not provided enough transparency so new legislative measures are on the horizon. On 8 October the UK Government published a set of draft Regulations which will tighten up the processes around pre-pack sales to connected parties.
What is a pre pack?
Recent insolvency law reforms in the UK, Singapore and Australia impact upon the ability of a party to a construction contract to terminate it due to the other party's insolvency.
Background
The Federal Government has announced its largest insolvency reform package in over 30 years, which includes a simplified formal debt restructuring process for eligible small businesses.
The centerpiece of the reforms is the adoption of a US-style "debtor in possession" restructuring model, which closely mirrors the recently enacted small business restructuring provisions of subchapter V of the US Bankruptcy Code.
For litigators the most important provision is the extension of the restrictions on the use of statutory demands and winding up petitions until 31 December 2020. The Act, of course, provides that no winding up petition can be presented on the basis of a statutory demand during the relevant restricted period and that where a winding up petition is presented (by a creditor on any basis) a court must be satisfied that coronavirus has not had a "financial effect" on the company before the presentation of the petition.
The new UK Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act (CIGA), which took effect in June 2020, ushers in permanent changes to the English insolvency and restructuring landscape as well as temporary, and largely retrospective, measures to help mitigate the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The three permanent additions are:
The statutory provisions for Restructuring Plans form a new Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006. CIGA was brought into force on June 26, 2020 and at a hearing in the High Court in London on September 2, 2020, the plan proposed by Virgin Atlantic, which was the first to be brought before the courts, was sanctioned.
The Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 (the "IRDA") came into force on 30 July 2020. The consolidation of all personal and corporate insolvency and debt restructuring legislation into a single statute, along with other legislative changes, seeks to further strengthen Singapore's position as an international debt restructuring hub. This note highlights certain key changes effected by the IRDA that are relevant to loan market participants.
Restrictions on ipso facto clauses
In Re PT MNC Investama TBK [2020] SGHC 149, the Singapore High Court provided guidance as to what is sufficient for a foreign company to establish standing to avail itself to the Singapore restructuring regime. Specifically, the factors expressed in the "substantial connection" test under the IRDA1 are non-exhaustive and courts will consider other factors involving "some permanence" to permit foreign companies to restructure in Singapore.
Establishing a "substantial connection"
The Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 (the "IRDA") came into force on 30 July 2020. The consolidation of all personal and corporate insolvency and debt restructuring legislation into a single statute, along with other legislative changes, seeks to further strengthen Singapore's position as an international debt restructuring hub. This note highlights the new restrictions on ipso facto provisions effected by the IRDA, which will be of particular interest to loan market participants.
Restrictions on ipso facto clauses
The landmark decision in Design Studio1 introduces the US rescue financing concept of "roll-ups" to Singapore. This is the first case to consider the appropriateness of the roll-up feature in Singapore and is a pragmatic decision that is guided by a careful balance between the protection of creditors' interests and the rehabilitation of the debtor. This case also clarifies that super priority is not solely for new money financings.
The Design Studio case and the super priority regime