A week is often described as a long time in politics, and so also (it seems) with the restructuring market.

Last week, we saw significant strides forward with:

The restructuring market has been eagerly anticipating the judgments in the New Look and Regis CVA challenges. The New Look judgment was handed down on 10 May 2021 and the Regis Judgment followed on 17 May 2021. This article briefly sets out the issues in the New Look CVA challenge, the decision of Mr Justice Zacaroli and what this means for the future of CVAs.

Overview of the New Look CVA Challenge

The claim brought by the Applicants (a consortium of compromised landlords) can be summarised briefly under three heads of claim:

Employees working for an insolvent company will have to be given at least 30 days’ notice of redundancy under new legislative reforms to be introduced by the Government. The proposal is part of a new Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment Action Plan to boost the rights of employees hit by insolvency.

Currently, collective redundancies cannot take effect until after a statutory 30 day period of notification to employees. This does not apply to collective redundancies triggered by insolvency but the Government is now planning to remove that exemption.

The media is brimming with articles on the rise of cryptocurrencies and digital assets. Whether it’s news on the rising value of Bitcoin, the acquisition of digital art for large amounts of money, the release of the latest Kings of Leon album as an NFT (non fungible token), or articles on people who have invested in cryptocurrency scams, crypto assets are taking center stage.

• A veszélyhelyzeti jogalkotás részeként a napokban kihirdetésre került egy több rendeletből álló jogszabálycsomag[1], amelynek egyik fő eleme a veszélyhelyzet során a vállalkozások reorganizációjáról szóló 179/2021. (IV. 16.) Korm. rendelet („Reorganizációs Rendelet”).

(This article was originally published in the Australian Restructuring Insolvency & Turnaround Association Journal, Vol. 33 – March 2021)

A liquidator can be exposed personally in litigation. In this article we discuss the risks to a liquidator associated with litigation by examining some recent cases where liquidators have been ordered to pay costs personally. To mitigate these risks, we provide guidance on litigation strategy for liquidators.

Background

The plaintiff was the primary trading entity within a larger group of companies which operated a development and construction business.

The liquidation of the group was complex, with a significant number of claims identified as requiring investigation. Further, ASIC’s allegations of serious misconduct resulted in a significant amount of the liquidator’s time being allocated to assisting ASIC with its investigation.

Problem

This article was originally published in the Australian Restructuring, Insolvency & Turnaround Association Journal (Volume 32 #01 2020)

The first of March marked the second anniversary of the changes to the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act) permitting an external administrator to assign rights to sue. The Australian Government proposed the reform in the hope that the ‘sale of rights of action may enable the value in such rights to be realised’[1].

The UK Restructuring Plan took its first foray down the well-trodden path of lease restructuring over the last week. The Restructuring Plan has been used through to court sanction in five cases so far: however, none has sought to compromise landlord claims, the preferred tool for which has until now been the CVA.

Volatile commodity prices in 2020 led to the bankruptcy of many oil and gas producers. While some analysts expect oil and gas prices to rise during 2021, the US Energy Information Administration’s 2021 annual outlook advises that a return to 2019 levels of US energy consumption will take years.[2]