Released in April 2016 the Turnbull Government proposed significant reforms to Australia’s insolvency laws, as part of its National Innovation Science Agenda - designed to strike a balance between encouraging entrepreneurship and protecting creditors, and to reduce the stigma associated with business failure.
Proposed changes in Italian law mean that it should become easier to create certain types of security in Italy and to recover debt. The relevant law is Decree-law no. 59/2016 (“Urgent provisions on insolvency and executive procedures’’) which came into force on 4 May 2016 and which should be converted into binding law by early July.
The main changes introduced by the Decree are as follows:
Facility agreements ordinarily oblige a borrower to prepay the facility on the occurrence of certain events, including, if a borrower receives insurance proceeds or asset sale proceeds during the loan term. The rationale for this is that lenders wish to use this unexpected windfall to mitigate the risk of non-payment. This is also the approach of the Loan Market Association (LMA) in its standard facility agreements.
Employment contracts were previously deemed to be suspended on the date of liquidation, being the date that the application for liquidation of the company is presented and issued at court in terms of s348 of the Companies Act, No 61 of 1973 (Old Companies Act). However, this position has since changed.
破产重整，实践中也称之为司法重组、法庭内重组、破产保护，是在人民法院主导下进行的企业重组活动，是《企业破产法》规定的三种程序之一。与破产清算程序不同，破产重整程序旨在帮助限于困境的企业脱离困境、实现重生。自《企业破产法》于2007年6月1日实施以来，沪深两市已有49家上市公司实施了破产重整，其中47家已完成重整。此外，部分从沪深两家交易所退市的公司也实施了破产重整。从实践来看，破产重整的上市公司或者退市公司多数具有债务负担沉重、持续经营能力较弱、盈利能力较差的特点。从结果来看，破产重整程序确实起到了拯救困难企业的积极作用。长航凤凰（SZ，000520）、长航油运5（400061）是近年来通过破产重整程序实现企业脱困复兴的典型案例。
Section 133 of the Companies Act, No 71 of 2008 places a general moratorium on legal proceedings, while the company is under business rescue. This provides a company with time and resources to be rehabilitated through the implementation of a business rescue plan. As a result, there is some debate as to whether creditors are precluded from perfecting their security, such as a notarial bond, under business rescue.
On 29 April 2016, the Australian Government Treasury released a proposal paper that, among other things, proposed reforms to introduce an ipso facto moratorium (Proposal). This reform was foreshadowed in as part of the Australian Government’s National Innovation and Science Agenda.
In a recent landmark judgment dated 21 February 2016 the Dubai Court of First Instance decided in favour of a foreign shareholder, against a local Emirati, in a winding up petition. This is contrary to the long established protectionist trend employed by Courts in the United Arab Emirates. What is even more surprising is that the Court, in reaching its decision, has adopted a purposive approach, rather than simply applying the black letter of the law, as has traditionally been the case.
Case Details
There has always been a degree of uncertainty when it comes to a business rescue practitioner’s costs and expenses incurred in the business rescue proceedings of an entity when the business recue proceedings are, for whatever reason, converted to liquidation proceedings.
The ‘dual jurisdiction’ regime has long been entrenched in South Africa’s corporate insolvency law. This principal arises from the provisions of the Companies Act, No 61 of 1973 (Old Act), which provides that jurisdiction over a company is determined by the location of both its registered address and its principal place of business with the creditor having the choice of jurisdiction.
With the enactment of the Companies Act, No 71 of 2008 (New Act), the question that then follows is: Does this principle of jurisdiction continue to apply under the New Act?