The Employment (Collective Redundancies and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2024 (the “Employment Act”) was signed into law on 9 May 2024 albeit the provisions have not yet commenced. The General Scheme of Companies (Corporate Governance, Enforcement and Regulatory Provisions) Bill 2024 (the “Companies Bill”) was published in March this year and is expected to be enacted later this year. Both make significant changes to the restructuring and insolvency regime. We will continue to keep you apprised of developments regarding the commencement of the Act.

It’s a tough time for Australian businesses. This is evident by the uplift in insolvencies, approximately 1,100 insolvencies occurred in March 2024 – the highest monthly figure since 2015[1]. Now more than ever, it is crucial for businesses to implement effective debt recovery practices to maximise cashflow.

The market is experiencing almost unprecedented levels of liquidity, across public and private debt and equity capital markets. This is staunching restructuring activity, which might otherwise be expected to rise (not least as pandemic-related government support starts to withdraw). There are also many companies still sponsoring defined benefit pension schemes. The statutory and regulatory landscape in this area has evolved significantly in recent months – with new powers for regulators, and new restructuring tools for debtors.

Since the inception of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code“), the debt resolution regime in India has witnessed not only a paradigm shift from the conventional ‘debtor in possession’ to a progressive ‘creditor in control’ but has also undergone a significant transformation, marking a departure from its traditional labyrinthine processes to a more streamlined and effective framework.

We have a direct statutory conflict:

• one statute requires an ERISA dispute to be resolved in arbitration; but
• a bankruptcy statute requires the same dispute to be resolved in bankruptcy.

Which statute should prevail? The bankruptcy statute, of course.

• That’s the conclusion of In re Yellow Corp.[Fn. 1]

Statutory Conflict

The In re Yellow Corp. case presents a direct conflict between these two federal statutes (emphases added):

Case law relating to the potential recharacterisation of fixed charges tends not to come around too often, but the recent case of Re UKCloud Ltd follows (relatively) hot on the heels of the Avanti Communications case, discussed here.

The case background

No, it isn’t. We now have two cases where the Court has confirmed that insolvency practitioners do not need the consent of paid secured creditors when extending an administration under para. 78 of Schedule B1 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the “Act”).

The proposed EU Directive on harmonisation of insolvency law seeks to set minimum standards for exercising avoidance actions in insolvency proceedings in order to safeguard the insolvency estate from unlawful asset transfers before the initiation of insolvency proceedings.

In Peru, the insolvency system is administrative rather than judicial. Because the administrative authority has limited powers, preference and avoidance actions must be resolved by the Judiciary. In recent years, the use of these actions has become more frequent.

Scope of avoidance actions

The Employment (Collective Redundancies and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2024 has been signed into law. The Act, once commenced, will amend the existing collective redundancy regime in insolvency situations and will deliver on key Programme for Government commitments detailed in the Plan of Action – Collective Redundancies following Insolvency.

Background

In brief

A selection of newly announced legislation and court decisions reinterpreting private law.

Click here to read in Czech.