In brief
Baker McKenzie recently acted for the Foreign Representatives of Thai Airways International Public Company (Thai Airways), in successfully obtaining orders recognising the business organisation proceeding commenced by Thai Airways in Thailand as a foreign main proceeding pursuant to article 17 of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross‑Border Insolvency (the Model Law) which is incorporated into Australian law by the Cross‑Border Insolvency Act 2008 (Cth) (the Act).
The Australian Government has announced that the operation of temporary COVID-19 relief measures for businesses in the hope of aiding distressed companies and preventing further economic breakdown will be extended until 31 December 2020.[1]
- Introduction
Under Hong Kong law, a company shall be deemed to be unable to pay its debts if a creditor, to whom the company is indebted of at least HKD 10,000 (around USD 1,290), has served on the company a demand requiring the company to pay and the company has not done so within three weeks.
In its recent judgment involving the PAS Group of companies[1], the Federal Court held that rent payable by the PAS Group during an extension of the period in which an administrator had been excused from personal liability (Standstill Period) is an expense properly incurred by a ‘relevant authority in carrying on the company’s business’ and is therefore a priority debt under s 556(1)(a) of the Corporations
In brief
The Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act (the IRDA) commenced on 30 July 2020. The IRDA is an omnibus legislation that consolidates Singapore's personal insolvency, corporate insolvency and debt restructuring laws into a single legislation. The IRDA will replace the Bankruptcy Act and the corporate insolvency and restructuring provisions in the Companies Act, each of which will be repealed. The IRDA also introduces new changes to the insolvency framework in Singapore.
Key changes to Singapore insolvency framework
Earlier in March and prior to Covid-19 taking over both the world and the legal world, Mr Justice Snowden handed down his judgment in Bilta (UK) Limited (in liquidation) et ors v (1) Natwest Markets PLC and (2) Mercuria Energy Europe Trading Limited [2020] EWHC 546 (Ch) in which he found both RBS (as defined below) and RBS SEEL (also as defined below) liable for dishonest assistance and knowingly being a party to fraudulent trading. As demonstrated below, the judgment contains a number of cautionary lessons for both banks and traders alike.
In brief
The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has profoundly reshaped the global business landscape. Some companies that only months ago seemed unstoppably profitable have been brought to an existential brink by extended lockdowns, supply chain failures, and other obstacles caused by the pandemic. Other companies who have experienced less disruption (or in some cases windfalls) stand at the threshold of opportunity even as they prepare themselves for the challenges of the 'new normal'.
In May, we reported (please refer to our previous alert available here) that the UK Government's much anticipated reforms to UK insolvency law were introduced in Parliament when the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill 2020 (the "Bill") started its passage in the House of Commons on 20 May 2020.
The Supreme Court of New South Wales has helpfully given guidance to the liquidators of the RCR Tomlinson Group on a number of unsettled questions that have challenged insolvency practitioners (particularly liquidators of construction companies) when assessing whether certain intangible rights and assets are circulating assets.
The questions include: