The "true employer" question is one which frequently arises in insolvencies of corporate groups, and it also arises in solvent workplace dispute scenarios. Answering it, however, is often hampered by inconsistent or incomplete records and very divergent returns for employees, depending on the outcome of the question.
The COVID-19 pandemic and the associated lock downs have led to a global economic slowdown, and Australia has been no exception. GDP fell by 0.3% in the March quarter, and on 3 June 2020 Treasurer Josh Frydenberg announced that Australia was officially in its first recession in 29 years.
While the Australian Government was quick to provide a range of economic support measures – having already spent $289bn or 14.6% of GDP in an attempt to keep the economy afloat – Treasury expects Australia's GDP will decline by 0.5% in 2019-20 and a further 2.5% in 2020-21.
The Corporations Act 2001 sets out a regime for the order in which certain debts and claims are to be paid in priority to unsecured creditors.
That's straightforward enough for a liquidator, right?
Unfortunately, matters are not that straightforward. In effect, there are two priority regimes under the Act for the preferential payments of particular creditors, each of which applies to a different "fund", and we've observed this has led to some liquidators being unsure of how to proceed – or even worse, using funds they should not.
In continuation of Reserve Bank of India’s (RBI) efforts to ease financial stress caused by the Covid-19 pandemic, the RBI issued the circular on the Resolution Framework for Covid-19 Related Stress dated 6 August 2020 (August 6 Circular). The August 6 Circular creates a limited time window for certain categories of borrowers affected by Covid-19 pandemic related business disruption to be allowed resolution plans in the nature of restructuring while permitting the borrower accounts to retain their status as ‘standard’.
Background:
On 24 July 2020, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), in its decision in GRIDCO Limited v Surya Kanta Sathapathy and Others [C.A. (AT) (Insolvency) 1271 of 2019] (GRIDCO judgement), held that the termination of a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) during the subsistence of a moratorium would be in violation of Section 14(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 (IBC). FACTUAL BACKGROUND |
This decision puts to rest some of the uncertainty which arose due to the NZCA's approach in Timberworld and helps to solidify liquidators' prospects of recovering maximum preferential payments.
Preferential payments can be an important source of funding for liquidators – and the recent decision in Bryant in the matter of Gunns Limited v Bluewood Industries Pty Ltd [2020] FCA 714 is a source of some relief for liquidators.
Timberworld – uncertainty over the impact on Australian liquidators
In a significant judgment dated 9 June 2020 titled ‘Indus Biotech Private Limited v.
Introduction
Background
Ever since the Hon’ble Finance Minister of India announced the suspension of initiation of corporate insolvency under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 (IBC) in wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, there have been several market speculations about the nature and extent of the proposed suspension and its implications. With the promulgation of the amendment ordinance to IBC, most of these speculations have been put to rest, however owing to the language of the Ordinance, a new set of issues may have arisen.