In October 2016, Singapore’s Ministry of Law (“MOL”) launched a public consultation to gather public feedback on proposed amendments to the Companies Act for debt restructuring.[1]

The insolvency profession (and the Queensland market in particular) has been abuzz this year with the issue of CORA – a shorthand reference to theEnvironmental Protection (Chain of Responsibility) Amendment Act 2016 (Qld).

What does it mean for insolvency practitioners? Can banks really be hit with a bill to clean up their borrowers’ environmental damage? Will turnaround and restructuring professionals refuse to accept appointments out of fear of falling foul of the new regime?

This post explains what you need to know.

In a November 17, 2016 ruling likely to impact ongoing debt restructurings, pending bankruptcy proceedings and negotiations of new debt issuances, the Third Circuit recently overturned refusals by both the Delaware bankruptcy court and district court to enforce “make-whole” payments from Energy Futures Holding Company LLC and EFIH Finance Inc. (collectively, “EFIH”) to rule that the relevant indenture provisions supported the payments. The case was remanded to the bankruptcy court for further proceedings.

On December 1, 2016, the amendments to Bankruptcy Rule 3002.1 aimed at clarifying when a secured creditor must file a payment change notice (“PCN”) in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy take effect. The new rule requires secured creditors to file PCNs on all claims secured by the Chapter 13 debtor’s primary residence for which the debtor or Chapter 13 Trustee is making post-petition payments during the bankruptcy, without regard to whether the debtor is curing a pre-petition arrearage.

‘Shipping steel, shipping steel . . .
Nobody knows, the way it feels
Caught between Heaven and the Highway
Shipping steel, shipping steel . . .’ ¹

On 7 April 2016, Administrators were appointed to South Australian-based steelmaker and iron ore miner Arrium, which reportedly owed approximately AUD4.3 billion to its lenders, suppliers and staff. The appointment covered 94 direct and indirect subsidiaries of Arrium Limited (the Arrium Companies), which at the time employed around 8,100 employees and contractors.

Unscrupulous advisors, unconscionably preying on desperate directors driven by the fear of losing everything, have created a boom in illegal phoenix activity. The below article, originally published on the McCullough Robertson white collar crime blog, Collared, sheds some light on the illegal phoenix, the gravity of the problem in Australia and considers what is being done to monitor and control the issue.

In Huff Energy Fund v. Gershen, C.A. No. 11116-VCS, the Delaware Court of Chancery dismissed a stockholder’s challenge to the board of director’s decision to dissolve the company following an asset sale. The Court ruled that the enhanced scrutiny standards of Revlon and Unocal do not supplant the business judgment rule in the context of a company’s decision to dissolve.

In August I presented on cross-border insolvency at the joint Federal Court of Australia and Law Council of Australia conference on corporations law. The audience consisted of over 30 Federal Court judges and a range of other experienced corporate and insolvency lawyers.

There have been recent reports that APR Energy PLC has threatened the Australian Government with a demand for $200 million in damages based on a claim under the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement after it lost its security interest in multi-million dollar wind turbines it leased to an Australian company due to the operation of a provision in the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) (PPSA).

On Friday 7 October 2016, McCullough Robertson successfully obtained orders on behalf of a US Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustee, requiring payment to her of money held by the Public Trustee of Queensland (Public Trustee) on behalf of a US bankrupt and her former husband. As far as we know, this is the first time that the Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency (Model Law) has been used in Australia to obtain an order allowing the repatriation of funds to a foreign representative that are not the foreign debtor’s assets.