En los cuatro artículos anteriores de esta serie (ver aquí) analizamos el papel clave de los inversores profesionales en las 'startups', pero también las desventajas de la exclusiva dependencia de este tipo de empresas del 'equity' y las ventajas que tendría la deuda para ellas. El entorno, como vimos, es además favorable para el endeudamiento. Abordamos la dificultad de ofrecer recetas generales para conseguir deuda y algunas vías no muy prometedoras.
Welcome to our latest edition of FMCG Express! 2020 continues to be an eventful year, although we are cautiously optimistic that we may be turning a corner in Australia. While COVID-19 continues to cast a shadow over our lives, our cities are starting to show green shoots of life, which is welcome news. Our thoughts are with our families, clients, associates, friends and colleagues in countries where numbers are at very concerning levels. In this edition, we have some useful COVID-19 reading. Siobhan Mulcahy considers the ongoing issues of JobKeeper with casual workers.
In the recent decision of Cant v Mad Brothers Earthmoving,[1] the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria (Justices Beach, McLeish and Hargrave) considered whether the liquidator of Eliana Construction and Developing Group (in liquidation) (Eliana) could establish that a payment made to an unsecured creditor of Eliana by one of Eliana’s related companies was an unfair preference.
The recent Federal Court decision of Scott v Southern Highlands Waste & Recycling Pty Ltd[1] provides liquidators with important guidance regarding the availability of search and seizure warrants under section 530C of the Corporations Act2001 (Cth) (the Corps Act).
In Caron and Seidlitz v Jahani and McInerney in their capacity as liquidators of Courtenay House Pty Ltd (in liq) & Courtenay House Capital Trading Group Pty Ltd (in liq) (No 2),[1] the New South Wales Court of Appeal was faced with what it described as the ‘classic insolvency conundrum’: how to distribute funds to investors as equally and as fairly as possible where the funds have
The recently announced proposed insolvency reforms draw on key features from Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the United States and aim to help more small businesses restructure and survive the economic impact of COVID-19.
The reforms will cover around 76% of businesses subject to insolvencies today, 98% of whom have less than 20 employees.[1]
La Ley Concursal define insolvencia como la incapacidad del empresario para cumplir regularmente con sus obligaciones exigibles.
Analizamos la Ley 3/2020, de 18 de septiembre, de medidas procesales y organizativas para hacer frente al COVID-19 en el ámbito de la Administración de Justicia para comprobar qué hay nuevo y qué ha cambiado esta nueva regulación respecto a la norma que la precedió, el RDL 16/2020 publicado durante la primera oleada de la pandemia.
In March, we reported that, as part of a suite of legislative and economic responses to COVID-19 the Commonwealth Government had announced a range of temporary amendments to certain insolvency laws. The amendments were aimed at temporarily amending insolvency laws, affecting in turn corporate governance, and directors’ duties.