Goulston & Storrs bankruptcy attorney Doug Rosner recently collaborated with Thomson Reuters to create a three-part video series regarding alternative solutions to the financial problems of distressed companies. This summary highlights the key elements to a successful out-of-court restructuring (part two of the series).

Goulston & Storrs bankruptcy attorney Doug Rosner recently collaborated with Thomson Reuters to create a three-part video series regarding alternative solutions to the financial problems of distressed companies. This summary highlights the advantages and disadvantages of out-of-court restructuring as an alternative to Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization (part one of the series).

Times are changing rapidly with the current flow of Coronavirus measures introduced to support businesses in debt and distress.

We take a look at what creditors can (and can’t) do to help better protect their position.

I’m owed money. What can I do?

Certain recent government measures may impede your ability to take recovery or enforcement action at the present time. The good news is that many avenues remain available.

You cannot (in some cases):

Lender liability typically refers to the situation where a lender exercises such a high degree of control over the day-to-day activities of the borrower that it becomes exposed to claims that otherwise would be asserted against the borrower. A recent decision by a New York Supreme Court judge determined that lenders may be exposed to liability even in the absence of control. This result, if upheld, may gain newfound importance in the COVID-19 era where lenders may turn to courts to help them protect their assets.

Editor’s Note:Legal Corner contains case summaries and analysis of recent court decisions that impact retail leasing and lease administration. These summaries focus on the leasing issues covered in each case and do not include detailed discussions or analysis of the procedural and peripheral issues in the cases.

Is a Liquidated Damages Clause Enforceable?

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:

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.