On 3 May 2021, the Treasurer announced that the Morrison government is pursuing further measures to improve Australia’s insolvency framework for both small and large businesses.

As part of the 2020–21 budget, the government announced the most significant reforms to Australia’s insolvency framework in 30 years. These reforms, which commenced on 1 January 2021, created new simplified liquidation and debt restructuring processes for small companies, and has provided directors with the control and flexibility they need to either restructure their business or wind down operations.

The Hungarian government has recently introduced a new restructuring tool with the aim of supporting companies suffering from financial difficulties due to COVID-19.

Financially distressed companies will receive an automatic stay while the company puts together a reorganisation plan, which will be supervised by a court and evaluated by a court-appointed expert.

The economic uncertainty for companies caused by the Covid-19 pandemic has placed a heavy burden on directors. That burden of responsibility is set to become even heavier as the temporary measures introduced in 2020 to support companies during the pandemic come to an end. Small and medium sized enterprises (“SMEs”) and those businesses operating in the travel, hospitality, leisure and manufacturing industries have been impacted in particular.

Dear Clients and Friends,

In 2020, domestic and international energy markets were challenged by a worldwide pandemic and its effect on commodity prices, which accelerated disruptions in supply chains and impacted the energy transition in countries around the world.

Introduction

In the recent case of Re Victor River Ltd [2021] HKCFI 886, which concerns the winding-up of a foreign company, the Court of First Instance applied the long-developed three core requirements which must be satisfied before exercising discretionary jurisdiction of the Court. In particular, the Court discussed how the holding of shares in a delisted company may impact on the Court’s consideration of the three core requirements. 

Background

Hayatın her alanında olduğu gibi iş hayatında da küresel salgının büyük yankıları oldu. Covid-19 ile birlikte gelen kısıtlamalar, değişen alışkanlıklar, döviz kurlarında yaşanan dalgalanmalar şirketlerin finansallarını da olumsuz yönde etkiledi. Bu durum şirketlerde, 6102 sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu’nun (“Kanun”) şirketlerin sermaye kaybı ile borca batık olma halini düzenleyen 376. maddesinin sıklıkla gündeme gelmesine yol açtı.

In Chandos Construction Ltd v Deloitte Restructuring Inc[1] [Chandos], the majority of the Supreme Court of Canada (the “SCC”) reaffirmed the common law anti-deprivation rule in Canada.

As the focus on ESG issues intensifies in the financial markets, we have seen institutional investors demand more in these areas, in terms of both disclosures and concrete targets, from banks and funds. Meanwhile, emerging regulations, and reforms designed to help meet climate change targets and to enhance corporate governance, sustainability and environmental and social responsibility are underway. How will refinancings and restructurings of the significant amount of corporate debt coming out of COVID be affected by such winds of change?

The COVID-19 pandemic is also keeping legislators on their toes, who are continuing to try to mitigate the impact of the pandemic on the economy. The focus was initially on the temporary suspension of the obligation to file for insolvency by the COVID-19 Insolvency Suspension Act (COVInsAG). Following on from this, with the Act on the Further Development of Restructuring and Insolvency Law (SanInsFoG), which came into force on 1 January 2021, the legislator has further modified obligations of conduct and, correspondingly, the liability of managing directors in the crisis of the company.

The Federal Court of Australia has ordered two company directors to personally compensate customers, pay a large fine and be disqualified from managing a corporation for being ‘knowingly concerned’ in unconscionable conduct by their company and ‘causing it’ to make false or misleading representations, in contravention of the Australian Consumer Law.

The orders made by the Federal Court of Australia against the company directors of Australian 4WD Hire, a vehicle rental company, were: