In summary
In our previous alert we discussed how Justice Markovic in the Federal Court of Australia had granted the administrators of retailer Colette Group relief from personal liability for rent in respect of 93 stores.
Directors of Australian companies face significant personal monetary − and potential criminal and adverse professional - consequences if they allow the company to trade whilst insolvent.
Australian insolvent trading laws are harsher, and more frequently utilised to prosecute directors personally, than in many other jurisdictions including in the US and the UK.
Accordingly, frequent assessment of a company's solvency by its directors is crucial, particularly in financially difficult times, as are active steps to address any potential insolvency.
In recent years, it has become common practice in large chapter 11 cases for debtors to include language in their proposed chapter 11 plan which purports to release certain nondebtors from the claims of third parties. Although some third parties may consent to the release—such as by voting in favor of the plan or otherwise electing to do so during the plan solicitation process—circumstances frequently arise in which the debtors seek approval from the bankruptcy court to release nondebtors from third parties’ claims without the consent of the third parties.
The enforcement of a lender’s claim for a make-whole premium in a chapter 11 case has created significant controversy among legal practitioners and the courts. Notably, the three circuit courts of appeal that have addressed make-whole claims, i.e. the Second, Third and Fifth Circuits, have issued conflicting decisions on the nature of these claims and their allowance under the Bankruptcy Code. In this post we provide a brief summary of make-whole premiums and address the controversy among the circuits.
Yeni Gelişme
Finansal Sektöre Olan Borçların Yeniden Yapılandırılması Hakkında Yönetmelik ("Yönetmelik") kapsamında Türkiye Bankalar Birliği ("TBB") tarafından hazırlanan Finansal Yeniden Yapılandırma Çerçeve Anlaşması'na ("Çerçeve Anlaşma") ilişkin değişiklik protokolü bankalar ve diğer finansal kuruluşların imzasına açıldı.
On 27 May 2022, the Honorable Mr. Justice Harris sanctioned a scheme of arrangement introduced by Rare Earth Magnesium Technology Group Holdings Limited, which was incorporated in Bermuda, to restructure its debt. The Reasons for Decision handed down on 6 June 2022 contain detailed discussions on, among other things, the use of schemes in cross-border insolvencies.
In brief
Australia's borders may be closed, but from the start of the pandemic, Australian courts have continued to grapple with insolvency issues from beyond our shores. Recent cases have expanded the recognition of international insolvency processes in Australia, whilst also highlighting that Australia's own insolvency regimes have application internationally.
Key takeaways
COVID-19
Government Intervention Schemes
Current as of 21 May 2021
Government Intervention Schemes
COVID-19 Government Intervention Schemes 2
Countries around the globe are facing unprecedented and rapid change due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This guide provides a summary of key government interventions around the globe in relation to: EU State Aid Approvals (for EMEA region), foreign investment restrictions, debt, equity and taxation.
On December 24, 2020 Brazilian Bankruptcy Law was amended by Law 14.112, to make the process of bankruptcy and judicial recuperation (Brazilian equivalent to US Chapter 11) more efficient, in view of the final distress triggered by the COVID-19 pandemia.
In brief
The Treasurer has today announced two new corporate insolvency regimes:
- a new "debtor in possession" restructuring plan process; and
- a new simplified liquidation process,
due to commence from 1 January 2021 and available to companies with liabilities of less than A$1m.
Restructuring Plan Process
The new restructuring plan process involves: