Days ago a lawyer's answer to these questions would have been the all too often heard "well, it depends". There would have been a serious risk of any such adjudication being stopped by the court granting a mandatory injunction to halt it. Ask the same questions again now and the response would be a resounding "yes and yes!"

It is imperative that companies in financial distress prioritise their continued existence and consider business rescue as an alternative to liquidation. One of the major advantages of the business rescue process is the moratorium (stay) on legal proceedings which aims to give financially distressed companies sufficient breathing space to trade out of its insolvency. A temporary moratorium automatically comes into operation upon the filing of a resolution placing the company into business rescue or the issuing of an application for an order to this effect.

On Thursday, 4 June 2020, the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement (“ODCE”) published a welcome reminder on points to be taken into account when considering liquidators’ reports and the likelihood of restriction proceedings as a consequence of dishonest or irresponsible conduct.

While the ODCE considers each company’s case on its own merits taking into account:

(i) the liquidator’s report on the relevant insolvent entity; and

(ii) any other relevant information obtained independently of the liquidator, broadly speaking:

It is imperative that companies in financial distress prioritise their continued existence and consider business rescue as an alternative to liquidation. Business rescue is a robust procedure that allows South African companies in financial distress or trading in insolvent circumstances to file for business rescue and with the assistance of a business rescue practitioner, reorganise and restructure the business with the aim of returning it to a more stable and profitable entity.

The UK Government has finally set out details of the proposed measures to temporarily restrict the use of statutory demands and winding up petitions during the worst of the COIVD-19 pandemic

The Covid-19 pandemic has had a devastating impact on the South African economy with several enterprises struggling to remain profitable. Their continued operation remains threatened by the imposition of trade restrictions pursuant to the national lockdown and South Africa’s subsequent economic downgrade to junk status.

In our earlier article, we discussed the importance of timing in corporate recovery efforts and the difficulties facing companies with the examinership process and its legislative requirements.

The COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) Act (the Act) will have a considerable impact on the enforcement of certain contracts and commercial disputes in Singapore for the next 6 to 12 months. The Act was passed by the Singapore Parliament, and commenced on the same day, 7 April 2020.

The key measures of the Act are:

The Act is meant to give temporary relief to financially distressed individuals, firms and businesses who are facing challenges imposed by COVID-19 but who are otherwise viable and profitable.

It is unsurprising that many of the Act’s sections expressly refer to the relevant provisions of the personal and corporate insolvency legislation applicable in Singapore. In this regard, it is noteworthy that the Act refers expressly to the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act (“IRDA”). This warrants some explanation.

Whilst no further action has, as yet, been taken to implement the foreshadowed changes to insolvency law in England and Wales (see our comments on the same), the Business and Property Courts of England and Wales ("BPC") have moved quickly to release a temporary Practice Direction on insolvency proceedings ("TIPD").