The Russian government has introduced a bankruptcy moratorium with effect from 1 April to 1 October 2022 in respect of all Russian legal entities and individuals (“Persons“) except for certain residential real estate developers.
The moratorium is intended to protect Russian debtors against creditors’ claims and provide support for players on the Russian market given the challenging environment they operate in.
The key consequences of the introduction of the moratorium regime are as follows:
Introduction
From a civil litigation and insolvency perspective, we look at the key impacts of the Hong Kong Courts’ recent General Adjournment of Proceedings (GAP) from 7 March 2022 to 11 April 2022 and related governmental closures.
Key Takeaways
1. The recent implementation of GAP has resulted in a de facto stay of new actions and proceedings, and adjournment of existing actions, including bankruptcy and winding-up petitions.
Introduction
Introduction
The Companies and Intellectual Property Commission (CIPC) issued a Business Rescue Proceedings Report (Business Rescue Report) on business rescue proceedings from its inception on 1 May 2011 to 31 December 2021 – a “ten-year” scorecard. It takes stock of how business rescue has developed over that period and whether South Africa has matured as a late entrant into the playing field of corporate restructuring regimes. The story must be told over the “ten-year” period and dissected into two parts: pre- and post-pandemic.
Chapter 6 of the Companies Act, 2008 affords a financially distressed company a fighting chance to restructure its financial obligations and avoid the destruction of value through liquidation for the duration of its formal chapter 6 business rescue proceedings. Such a moratorium is not available if a company seeks to conclude a restructure through a compromise or arrangement with all its creditors or members of any class of creditors.
In brief
The courts were busy in the second half of 2021 with developments in the space where insolvency law and environmental law overlap.
In Victoria, the Court of Appeal has affirmed the potential for a liquidator to be personally liable, and for there to be a prospective ground to block the disclaimer of contaminated land, where the liquidator has the benefit of a third-party indemnity for environmental exposures.1
In brief
The Rating (Coronavirus) and Directors Disqualification (Dissolved Companies) Act ("Act") received royal assent on 15 December 2021.
The Act extends the scope of powers available to the Insolvency Service to address the issue of directors dissolving companies to avoid paying their liabilities.
In brief
The Rating (Coronavirus) and Directors Disqualification (Dissolved Companies) Act ("Act") received royal assent on 15 December 2021.
The Act extends the scope of powers available to the Insolvency Service to address the issue of directors dissolving companies to avoid paying their liabilities.