Overseas developments might have inspired mooted changes to create a debtor in possession model in Australia.
2021 began with a sense of optimism, but COVID-19 is continuing to wreak havoc on the Australian economy. The Commonwealth Bank of Australia is forecasting a 0.7% decline GDP in the September quarter and a likely rise in unemployment in July. New South Wales in particular, is expected to be hit very hard.
Unusual circumstances have spurred innovation and ground-breaking responses which will reshape restructuring and insolvency.
Just when you thought it was safe to return to your favourite local restaurant and that COVID-19 had exclusive rights to 2020, we find ourselves once again working from home and having to cope with the lingering effects of the virus. Unfortunately for corporate Australia, the COVID virus is as contagious as it always was for your business… but there is a light at the end of the tunnel for some.
Carey Olsen is proud to have sponsored the 7th annual INSOL International Channel Islands Seminar which took place in Jersey on 14 September 2021.
The seminar, which provided a welcome opportunity for insolvency practitioners and advisers to reconnect in person, showed why Jersey and Guernsey remain leading locations for structuring complex financial transactions and for the secured lending market.
The following key points were amongst or relate to those discussed at the seminar.
No pandemic-driven barriers to enforcement
The latest decision in the Arrium collapse should give some encouragement to Australia's restructuring sector.
Following a lengthy trial of 38 days in the NSW Supreme Court in March and April 2021, Justice Michael Ball (no relation) has handed down the decision in the two proceedings, Anchorage Capital Masters Offshore Ltd v Sparkes (No 3); Bank of Communications Co Ltd v Sparkes (No 2) [2021] NSWSC 1025.
In dismissing these proceedings, Justice Ball has given some comfort to restructuring in Australia,
Trilogy Management Limited v White Willow (Trustees) Limited and Others, 13 May 2021
Fallout from the global pandemic continues to throw light on the responsibilities of directors in times of financial distress. This briefing examines those duties in greater detail, particularly in relation to Guernsey’s company law.
Decisions, decisions
Directors owe duties to the companies they serve and ordinarily discharge those duties with reference to the interests of the companies’ members as a whole.
Before embarking on any litigation, or continuing any litigation that is on foot at the time of the liquidator's appointment, a liquidator should carefully weigh up the benefits and risks of pursuing a particular course of action.
A liquidator can be exposed personally in litigation. We discuss the risks to a liquidator associated with litigation by examining some recent cases where liquidators have been ordered to pay costs personally. We provide guidance on ways to mitigate this risk.
Balancing risk – weighing up competing priorities
In its recent decision in Net International Property Limited v Erez, the Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal considered whether the BVI Courts had jurisdiction at common law to recognize an insolvency office-holder appointed in the courts of Israel, and whether and to what extent the BVI Courts could grant assistance to that office-holder at common law.
Externally-administered companies will have 24 months to comply with financial reporting and AGM obligations, if ASIC's proposal goes ahead.
ASIC relief defers obligations to lodge financial reports and hold annual general meetings for companies in external administration by 6 months. Companies in liquidation (other than AFS licensees) do not have to comply with financial reporting or AGM obligations at all.
In the Representation of Matthew David Smith and Ors. [2021] JRC 047 the Royal Court of Jersey has handed down an important decision, exercising its discretion to grant a moratorium in substantially the same terms as provided under the UK Insolvency Act 1986.