A recent decision of Justice Rees of the Supreme Court of New South Wales confirms the importance of keeping proper financial books and records in the context of insolvency.

Commissioned shortly after the Monarch Airlines collapse in October 2017, the UK Government's Airline Insolvency Review has published its Final Report. This article looks at how the Report's recommendations – if implemented - would impact passenger protection if, in the future, airlines become insolvent and what these recommendations mean for airlines.

In complex long-term charters for vessels or finance leases in respect of vessels under the U.S. Uniform Commercial Code (“UCC”) and its Article 2A (governing commercial matters relating to finance leases) and under other similar law, a charterer’s or lessor’s damages under a charter or lease— both generally upon a payment default or in the event of a casualty—are often liquidated in stipulated loss value (“SLV”) provisions. These provisions ensure that the lessor/charterer gets the benefit of its bargain.

The Insolvency Working Group of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (“UNCITRAL”⁾¹ has been busy this past year, working on three new model laws and developing work on at least two possible future projects.2 The Insolvency Working Group is responsible for drafting the Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency (the “CBI Model Law”) in 1997, which has since been adopted in 46 countries and is under consideration in several others. In 2005, the United States adopted the CBI Model Law as Chapter 15 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. 

In late 2017 the UK Government spent £60 million of taxpayers' money repatriating over 110,000 Monarch Airlines passengers stranded overseas.

The Airline Insolvency Review was created to "consider both repatriation and refund protection to identify the market reforms necessary to ensure passengers are protected".

The Supreme Court recently limited the ability of debtors to use contract rejection in bankruptcy to shed unwanted trademark licensees. But the Court acknowledged that the result could change if the trademark licensing agreement had different termination rights. Going forward, parties entering into trademark licensing agreements will need to consider this decision carefully as they negotiate termination rights in the event of a bankruptcy by the licensor.

With the May 1 order, the Commission reaffirms its view that it has concurrent jurisdiction over debtors’ efforts to reject their FERC-jurisdictional contracts in bankruptcy. Further developments in judicial proceedings in the Sixth and Ninth Circuits are expected.

On May 1, 2019, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission denied Pacific Gas and Electric Co.’s requests for rehearing of two commission orders asserting concurrent jurisdiction with bankruptcy courts over the disposition of wholesale power contracts PG&E seeks to reject through bankruptcy.[1]

On 1 October 2018, the Singapore Parliament passed the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Bill (the "Bill"), an omnibus legislation which will consolidate Singapore's personal insolvency, corporate insolvency and restructuring laws, which are currently under separate legislative regimes.

The overhaul follows recent amendments to the corporate insolvency and restructuring provisions of the Singapore Companies Act, and is part of a wider effort to boost the debt restructuring ecosystem in Singapore.

Key provisions introduced by the bill

1. Genussrechte können nur dann als inhaltsgleiche Schuldverschreibungen aus Gesamtemissionen dem Schuldverschreibungsgesetz unterfallen, wenn sie in einer Urkunde verbrieft sind (Genussschein).
2. In einem Prozess über Rechte der Schuldverschreibungsgläubiger aus den Schuldverschreibungen sind diese auch dann Partei des Prozesses, wenn sie einen gemeinsamen Vertreter bestellt haben.
3. Die Vertretungsmacht im Insolvenzverfahren berechtigt den gemeinsamen Vertreter auch ohne vorhergehenden gesonderten Beschluss der Gläubigerversammlung, der Forderungsanmeldung eines anderen Gläu