Challenges to apparently prejudicial CVAs remain fraught with uncertainty but could provide a means of negotiating more favourable terms

An eagerly awaited appeal of the high-profile case of Lazari Properties 2 Ltd & others v New Look Retailers Ltd & others has settled, leaving landlords and tenants with no further clarity on aspects of company voluntary arrangements (CVAs), an increasingly litigious area in real estate disputes.

The Grand Court of the Cayman Islands (Kawaley J) handed down a recent decision appointing receivers over a segregated portfolio, in the case of In the Matter of Green Asia Restructure Fund SPC[1].

Under Thai bankruptcy law, a creditor can file a request for a debtor to be placed under an absolute receivership order and bankruptcy judgment. However, the debtor must be insolvent, and the debt owed to the creditor or creditors must be at least THB 1 million (for a debtor who is a natural person) or THB 2 million (for the debtor who is a juristic person). In order to know whether the latter requirement is met, the debt must be “determinable”—that is, known and monetarily quantifiable.

With a marked increase in large-scale cross-border insolvency and restructuring proceedings in the Cayman Islands and elsewhere, there is a greater focus on principles of comity and co-operation between courts and collaboration between officeholders.

In one of the most important trust decisions of recent years, which was handed down on Thursday 13 October 2022, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (the JCPC) held that the rights of indemnity of successive trustees against the assets of an insolvent trust fund (ie a trust fund that is unable to meet those liabilities) rank pari passu and not on a first in time basis.

Major restructuring destinations each provide distinct mechanisms for rehabilitating companies in distress. Our table sets out the similarities and differences in the processes available in Australia, England & Wales, Hong Kong, Singapore, and the USA.

Object of schemes of arrangement

Over the past decade, or so, we have seen situations in Chapter 11 cases where groups of creditors contracted with debtors for the exclusive right to provide new money on extremely favorable terms, with significant "backstop" fees paid in connection therewith, and other creditors in the same class were excluded from participating in such investments. E.g., Peabody Coal, CHC Helicopter, Pacific Drilling, Momentive and most recently, LATAM Airlines and TPC Group.

This table provides a high level overview of the restructuring and insolvency processes available in Australia, comparing their purposes, effects, advantages and disadvantages.

Commercial court powers have been amended to achieve the speed and efficiency required by EU regulations.