The revised Practice Direction: Insolvency Proceedings
July 2018
Should a Massachusetts homeowner be allowed to claim a homestead exemption in a principal residence that is also used for business or other commercial purposes? Answering this question several years ago as a matter of first impression, the U.S.
In this newsletter, we will explore how the new impending ipso facto reforms, which come into effect on 1 July 2018, could affect landlords under commercial leases or parties under other contractual arrangements.
What are the Ipso Facto Reforms?
The ipso facto reforms seek to prevent certain termination and other ipso facto rights under a contract from being enforced against a counterparty:
The Supreme Court of Western Australia has recently made a freezing order in the matter of Trans Global Projects Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) (TGP) v Duro Felguera Australia Pty Ltd (Duro) [2018] WASC 136.
This decision sheds light on:
You have instructions to commence proceedings for damages for personal injury against a defendant company only to find that the company has entered in to a Company Voluntary Arrangement (“CVA”). What procedural issues arise and what steps should be taken?
What is a CVA?
The long-awaited new Practice Direction – Insolvency Proceedings (PDIP), which came into force on 25 April 2018, has now brought procedure into line with the changes introduced by the significant amendments to the Insolvency Act 1986 (the Act) introduced last year and the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016 (IR 2016), as amended. This has finally brought to an end the agonisingly long period (over 12 months) in which the provisions of the previous Practice Direction have been at odds with the Act as amended and IR 2016.
In September 2017, the Australian government introduced the most significant reforms to Australia's insolvency regime for the past 30 years with the enactment of the Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Enterprise Incentives No. 2) Act 2017 (Cth).
In light of the radically and rapidly changing face of bricks and mortar retail, cases providing guidance on the way in which liabilities are to be dealt with in the course of the restructuring / insolvency process are extremely valuable not only for stakeholders and practitioners dealing with the consequences of those processes but also to those guiding and devising the strategies in the first instance.
Wright and Rowley v Prudential Assurance Company Limited is one such case arising out of the collapse of the British Home Stores (‘BHS’) retailing group in 2016.
There are unique and competing interests between the United States Bankruptcy Code1 and federal and state environmental laws. One of the primary purposes of the Bankruptcy Code is to allow a debtor to have a "fresh start." On the other hand, environmental laws are intended to require responsible parties to comply with environmental standards for the protection of human health and the environment. As a result of these competing interests, there has been extensive litigation related to the interplay between the bankruptcy and environmental regimes.
What you need to know in light of Seymour Whyte Constructions Pty Ltd v Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd (in liq)
The NSW Supreme Court recently handed down its decision in the matter of Seymour Whyte Constructions Pty Ltd v Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd (in liq); Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd (in liq) v Seymour Whyte Constructions Pty Ltd [2018] NSWSC 412, in which K&L Gates represented Seymour Whyte. The decision sheds light on numerous issues, including: