The Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 (the "IRDA") came into force on 30 July 2020. The consolidation of all personal and corporate insolvency and debt restructuring legislation into a single statute, along with other legislative changes, seeks to further strengthen Singapore's position as an international debt restructuring hub. This note highlights the new restrictions on ipso facto provisions effected by the IRDA, which will be of particular interest to loan market participants.

Restrictions on ipso facto clauses

Last Friday, in response to the outbreak of the coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19), the German government announced various measures described as a big "bazooka" to avert a crisis in the Eurozone's largest economy. The German development bank KfW will play a key role in the context of the announced measures and has been tasked to provide liquidity assistance to German companies hit by the pandemic.

Presented as a major measure of the five-year French presidential term, the law “on growth and business transformation”, also known as the PACTE Act, came into force on May 24th, 2019. Amongst the changes that were brought, some of them deserve a particular focus.

Two phases of the reform. The PACTE Act revises the insolvency legal framework and mainly empowers the executive to directly implement the EU insolvency directive and to reform the law on security interests within a period of two years.

The first phase of the reform

Our February 22 post reported that the Franchise Services of North America, Inc. decision of Bankruptcy Judge Edward Ellington of the Southern District of Mississippi dismissing a Chapter 11 petition because a holder of “golden share” stock had not approved the petition as required by the debtor’s charter was going directly to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on an expedited basis. It is the first case concerning the merits of contractual or structural bankruptcy-remoteness in my memory to reach a Court of Appeals since the adoption of the Bankruptcy Code in 1978.

In Levin v. Verizon Bus. Global, LLC (In re OneStar Long Distance, Inc.), 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 18374 (7th Cir. Sept. 22, 2017), the Seventh Circuit recently addressed a situation where a debtor sought to reduce a creditor’s new value defense in a preference avoidance action.

A bankruptcy judge in New York court recently dismissed a case filed under chapter 15 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code because the debtors did not have their center of main interests or business operations in the jurisdiction where the initial, foreign case was filed, the British Virgin Islands (BVI). In re Creative Finance Ltd. (In Liquidation), No. 14-10358, 2016 WL 156299 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Jan. 13, 2016).

In a recent ruling, Trusa v. Nepo(Del. Ch. April 13, 2017), consistent with prior case law, Vice Chancellor Montgomery-Reeves of the Delaware Chancery Court held that a creditor cannot bring a derivative action against a Delaware limited liability company, even where the company is clearly insolvent. The ruling is interesting, because in the well-known case of North American Catholic Educational Programming Foundation, Inc. v. Gheewalla, 930 A.2d 92 (Del.

The Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations (OCIE) announced it is examining registrants’ compliance with key whistleblower provisions arising out of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the Dodd-Frank Act).

A recent decision by an appeals court of the State of New York highlights the deceptive complexity of bringing non-contractual claims by or on behalf of noteholders under the seemingly boilerplate remedies provisions in trust indentures. At issue was the standard indenture language that defines the authority of a trustee to bring claims under the indenture, and in particular whether the trustee has the power to bring non-contractual claims under its own volition (not directed by a majority in principal amount of bondholders) against persons not party to the indenture.

Surfant sur les tensions du marché mondial des produits de protection sanitaire et leurs composants, les escrocs développent les fraudes aux fournisseurs.

Ayant choisi leur interlocuteur et se faisant passer pour un fournisseur habituel de la société ou une société détenant ces produits ou composants sous tension, ils développent une stratégie fondée sur la rareté et l’urgence pour faire effectuer sans délai des virements pour sécuriser les contrats.

Les règles de prudence doivent être d’autant plus respectées :