Having ensured, to the extent possible, the safety of their workplace and workforce, many companies are turning their mind to the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. All businesses are impacted, and in many cases, the impact will be adverse, whether caused by travel restrictions, office or workforce disruptions or decreased demand.
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.
In such turbulent times, financial institutions and their customers or borrowers may be facing significant challenges and stresses. There are signs suggesting that clients are facing financial distress and would benefit from assessing restructuring options, or that it would be time to consult with your intervention or special loans group.
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:
On January 23, 2020, the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously allowed the appeal from the Québec Court of Appeal’s decision in 9354-9186 Québec Inc. et al. v. Callidus Capital Corporation, et al., opening the doors to third-party litigation funding in insolvency proceedings in Canada.
Background
When a commercial tenant goes bankrupt, the respective rights of landlords and trustees can be complex to sort out. Yet, as illustrated by recent Ontario Superior Court decision 7636156 Canada Inc. v. OMERS Realty Corporation, 2019 ONSC 6106, this determination can have important ramifications on the assets available for distribution to creditors.
On November 1, 2019, amendments to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act,R.S.C. 1985, c. B-3 (BIA) and the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-36 (CCAA) came into force. Among other changes described in our previous publication, these amendments expand the protection offered to intellectual property (IP) licensees in the event that the licensor enters insolvency.
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.