The Australian government is working to significantly reform Australia’s current insolvency laws by mid-2017.

The reforms are intended to achieve greater likelihood of business preservation by introducing the flexibility to achieve real turnaround of businesses in crisis.

The proposed changes include:

In Berryman v Zurich Australia Ltd [2016] WASC 196, the Supreme Court of Western Australia held a bankrupt, Berryman, was able to maintain legal action in his own name, claiming TPD insurance benefits from Zurich.

The Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) relevantly provides:

In Austcorp Project Number 20 Pty Ltd v The Trust Co (PTAL) Limited, in the matter of Bellpac Pty Limited (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (in liq) [2015] FCA 850, the Federal Court of Australia had to determine whether to dismiss the proceedings for failure to comply with previous orders for security for costs, or vary those orders for security. The basis upon which the Court made the orders for security in the first place is set out in Austcorp Project Number 20 Pty Ltd v LM Investment Management Ltd [2014] FCA 1371, and was canvassed in an ear

SFC released consultation conclusions on supervisory assistance. The Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) released consultation conclusions on proposed amendments to the Securities and Futures Ordinance (SFO). The amendments would provide assistance to regulators outside of Hong Kong upon request by making inquiries and obtaining certain records and documents from licensed corporations or their related corporations. The proposed supervisory assistance will be subject to both existing and new legislative safeguards.

A recent Federal Court of Australia decision has granted the Australian Commissioner of Taxation the right to recover, from a failed foreign company’s Australian assets, the pari passu amount the Commissioner would have been entitled to receive (on account of outstanding domestic tax and penalties) if he had been allowed to prove in the liquidation before the assets are remitted to the company’s foreign representatives (the liquidators). 

In response to the coronavirus outbreak, a number of government and central bank measures are available to businesses in Europe. Additionally, insolvency laws have been updated. Our guidance outlines what this means to businesses in 14 countries: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain and UK.

The EU Directive on restructuring and insolvency was published in the OJEU on Wednesday. Members states have until 17 July 2020 to implement it, and this includes the UK as it stands: the UK has much – but not all – of it already. The UK Government has its own plans for reforming insolvency law of course, including to re-introduce Crown Preference. It is mostly about creating a rescue framework.

In Budimex SA (C224/18), the CJEU was asked by a Polish Court to determine the time of supply in relation to a construction contract where no invoice was issued in accordance with articles 63 and 66 of the Principal VAT Directive (PVD), which provide that the chargeable event for VAT purposes is when the services are supplied.

While a range of outcomes, including a departure under the terms of the current Withdrawal Agreement, remains possible, it is important for businesses to plan for a no-deal Brexit, in which the UK leaves the EU without a withdrawal agreement or other deal. Here we look at the potential impact of a no-deal Brexit on cross-border corporate recovery and insolvency.

Key issues

Immediately following the results of the UK referendum on exiting the EU in June 2016, we wrote about the potential impact of Brexit on cross-border restructuring and insolvency work. As we identified then, the key issue in this area is the potentially significant implications of losing the reciprocal effect of the EU Regulation on insolvency proceedings and the Brussels Regulation (recast). In this article we focus on the impact of the loss of recognition under the Insolvency Regulation.