This is the second part in a series of articles discussing certain restructuring and insolvency related provisions of the Tax Reform. Previously we discussed net operating losses (“NOLs”), and noted that the House and Senate plans are quite similar when it comes to NOLs. That is not the case with the provisions in H.R. 1 that relate to cancellation of the debt (“COD”).

In a wide-reaching judgment concerning an appeal by Mighty River International in the administration of Mesa Minerals, the Western Australian Court of Appeal has recognised that a "holding" Deed of Company Arrangement (DOCA) is permissible under Part 5.3A of the Corporations Act.

The key points - Holding DOCAs as a flexible framework

The key points for insolvency and turnaround professionals to take from Mighty River International v. Hughes are:

In de Employment Update van april jl. informeerden wij u al over het feit dat de Advocaat-Generaal van het Hof van Justitie van de Europese Unie ("HvJ") in zijn conclusie in de zaak Estro/Smallsteps het HvJ heeft geadviseerd, dat de Richtlijn Overgang van Onderneming gewoon van toepassing dient te zijn op zogenaamde pre-pack faillissementen. Een pre-pack faillissement betekent - in het kort - dat een doorstart volgend op een faillissement al vóór de faillietverklaring in stilte wordt voorbereid met de hulp van een "beoogd curator".

Conducting Business in Ukraine 2017 All of the information included in this document is for informational purposes only, and may not reflect the most current legal developments, judgments, or settlements. This information is not offered as legal or any other advice on any particular matter.

Europe has been a hot bed of legislative reform in the R&I space since the GFC. This panel discussed where some of the key jurisdictions had ended up in this process, in some cases, making significant changes to allow greater flexibility of treatment and efficiencies of process. Led by Philip Hertz (Clifford Chance), Lucas Kortmann (RESOR), Angel Martin (KPMG) and Dr Leo Plank (Kirkland & Ellis) discussed processes available in the UK, the Netherlands, Spain and Germany and some impending changes.

The Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury recently announced that the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) Ordinance (the “Amendment Ordinance”) will come into operation on 13 February 2017. The Amendment Ordinance introduces a more efficient administration of the winding-up process and streamlines the procedures in line with international developments. The new legislation also aims to further protect creditors against asset depletion of insolvent companies.

Our alert discusses these developments.

Both of Canada’s primary insolvency statutes, the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”) and the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA”) provide for an automatic stay of all legal proceedings when an insolvent debtor files for or seeks insolvency protection. The purpose of the stay is to provide breathing space to a debtor attempting to restructure its business so as to avoid “death by a thousand cuts” and also to ensure similarly situated creditors are treated equally.

What you need to know

The Court of Appeal - Supreme Court of Western Australia has confirmed that the existence of a general security interest does not of itself destroy mutuality between a company in liquidation and its creditors and as a consequence section 553C of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act) can apply to allow a creditor to set-off its debts against amounts owed to the company in liquidation.1

In a comprehensive unanimous decision, the Court of Appeal confirmed the following propositions:

On March 16, 2018, a Quebec Court approved a litigation funding agreement for an insolvent company operating under court-protection in a Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceeding. The insolvent company wanted to pursue a significant claim against its primary secured creditor and the litigation funding agreement stipulated that the third party litigation funder will pay all legal fees and disbursements in relation to the proposed claim in exchange for a portion of any proceeds of the litigation.

Since the landmark decision in Re Solfire Pty Ltd (In Liq) (No. 2) [1999] 2 Qd R 182, the Queensland Supreme Court has often marched to its own tune when reviewing applications for insolvency practitioner remuneration and disbursements. In two related decisions arising from the insolvency of LM Investment Management and managed investment schemes of which it is responsible entity, the Court has now turned its attention to the controversies in this area over proportionality and access to trust assets with which its counterparts in New South Wales have grappled over the last 18 months.