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.
The decision of the High Court of Australia in Ramsay Health Care Australia Pty Ltd v Compton [2017] HCA 28; 261 CLR 132 (Ramsay) clarified the limits of a Bankruptcy Court's discretion to "go behind" a judgment, that is, to investigate whether the underlying debt relied upon for the making of a sequestration order is, in truth and reality, owing to the petitioning creditor. Recently, the Ramsay decision was applied by the Federal Court of Australia in Dunkerley v Comcare [2019] FCA 1002 (Dunkerley).
On 19 June 2019, the much-anticipated High Court appeal in the matter of Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts Australia Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth [2019] HCA 20 (also known as the "Amerind appeal") was handed down.
With cov-lite financings at record highs, debt holders will need to be proactive in maximising recoveries
Will the last person leaving please turn out the lites?
Cov-lite loans can leave lenders with limited restructuring options, but creative lenders will still find ways to bring debtors to the table, partners Ian Wallace and Christian Pilkington of global law firm White & Case LLP explain
On 12 June 2019, after a tense meeting with landlords and creditors, the company voluntary arrangements (CVAs) proposed by the Arcadia Group Ltd (Arcadia) were approved by the requisite majority of creditors, allowing the group to restructure its balance sheet and stave off, at least for the time being, a liquidation or administration proceeding.
Arcadia's decline
The banking reform package marks an important step toward the completion of the European post-crisis regulatory reforms
On May 20, 2019, the Supreme Court held in Mission Products Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC that a debtor-licensor's rejection of a trademark license agreement does not "deprive the licensee of its rights to use the trademark." This holding resolves a longstanding circuit split in the Federal Courts of Appeal about the effects of bankruptcy on trademark licenses.
Background
Presented as a major measure of the five-year French presidential term, the law “on growth and business transformation”, also known as the PACTE Act, came into force on May 24th, 2019. Amongst the changes that were brought, some of them deserve a particular focus.
Two phases of the reform. The PACTE Act revises the insolvency legal framework and mainly empowers the executive to directly implement the EU insolvency directive and to reform the law on security interests within a period of two years.
The first phase of the reform
Liquidators are encouraged to seek advice or directions from the Court as to the discharge of their responsibilities. But who bears the costs of such proceedings, of the liquidator and of any contradictor involved?
A Singaporean construction company in liquidation has successfully sued one of its former directors for failing to act in the best interests of the company, highlighting the importance of directors being aware of, and protecting against, potential personal liability for breach of duty.
Directors’ liability – the risk