Recent emergency motions from Modell’s Sporting Goods, Inc. (“Modell’s) and Pier 1 Imports, Inc. (“Pier 1”) to put their chapter 11 cases on ice may signal a growing trend. As the economic consequences of efforts to contain and respond to COVID-19 infections render deal-making difficult or impossible, what were the best-laid plans a few weeks ago often no longer make sense.

To assist businesses dealing with the economic impact of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, on March 28, 2020, the UK government followed in the footsteps of countries including Spain, Germany and Australia and announced certain changes to UK insolvency law.

This article summarises the key changes the UK government is proposing to existing insolvency laws, and considers the key restructuring tools available to assist companies during this unprecedented and challenging time.

Wrongful Trading Suspension

Barely a month after Bankruptcy Code amendments providing a cheaper, more efficient path to chapter 11 relief for small businesses took effect under the Small Business Reorganization Act of 2019 (“SBRA”), Congress has nearly tripled the debt-eligibility threshold from roughly $2.7 to $7.5 million in response to economic fallout from the COVID-19 shutdown.

In a recent decision in the Supreme Court of NSW[1], Rees J set aside a liquidator’s bid to publicly examine two senior officers of the National Rugby League (NRL), finding that examination summonses issued by the liquidator were an abuse of process and the entire liquidation process was a contrivance in order to exert commercial pressure on the NRL.

The Coronavirus Economic Response Package Omnibus Bill 2020 (Coronavirus Response Bill) was passed on 23 March 2020 and received Royal Assent on 24 March 2020 following the Federal Government’s announcements made between 12 and 22 March 2020 of its economic response to the spread of the coronavirus pandemic.

The Coronavirus Response Bill provides, amongst other legislative amendments, for temporary changes of 6 months’ duration to Australian insolvency and corporations laws to assist in managing the sudden economic shock resulting from COVID-19.

In its recent decision in the ongoing Solar Shop litigation,[1] the Full Federal Court established two key principles which will have significant ongoing implications for the conduct of unfair preference claims:

A Texas bankruptcy court recently ruled that dedication clauses in gas-gathering agreements run with the land and cannot be rejected by a debtor. That decision, In re Alta Mesa Resources, Inc., affirms an industrywide practice that faced an uncertain future following the ruling in In re Sabine Oil & Gas Corp. from the Southern District of New York, which was upheld by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2018.

In Carrello,^[1] the Federal Court granted a warrant under section 530C of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the Act) allowing the liquidator of Drilling Australia Pty Ltd (the Company) to search and seize property, books and records located in storage containers belonging to the Company.

The Federal Court has considered whether a deed of company arrangement (DoCA) binds a regulator. The case involved an application by the Fair Work Ombudsman (FWO) for leave to proceed against a company in liquidation. The Court rejected the company’s argument that the FWO’s claims were extinguished by the DoCA and granted the FWO leave to pursue the claim. The outcome of the proceedings may impact the types of, and circumstances in which, claims by a regulator will not be extinguished by a DoCA.

In a decision of the Federal Court handed down on 18 October 2019 in Masters v Lombe (Liquidator); In the Matter of Babcock & Brown Limited (In Liquidation) [2019] FCA 1720, Foster J held that Babcock & Brown Limited (BBL) did not breach the continuous disclosure obligations in the Corporations Act 2001 and the ASX Listing Rules.