Due in large part to the challenges brought on by the pandemic, Chapter 11 bankruptcy filings last year hit the highest level since 2010—a trend expected to continue throughout this year.
Bankruptcy and restructuring is complex, full of twists and turns. Yet for all the expense, blame, negotiation, compromise and introspection involved, the process does provide an opportunity for distressed companies to get their businesses and finances back on track.
Some courts permit debtors to designate vendors crucial to their business as “critical vendors.” These vendors supply debtors with necessary goods or services. Debtors are permitted to pay them amounts owing when a bankruptcy case is filed. Accordingly, critical vendors often recover more on their pre-petition claims than other unsecured creditors. In other words, critical vendors could receive a full recovery, while other creditors only receive a fraction of what they are owed.
Beginning on February 13, 2021, something unprecedented happened in the state of Texas—a winter storm caused temperatures to dip well-below freezing. This event, dubbed the “Black Swan Winter Event,” caused Texas to experience a catastrophic energy crisis. As demand for energy soared, supply plummeted as power plants tripped offline and natural gas supply lines froze. The storm raged on, and on February 16, the Public Utility Commission of Texas (“PUCT”), which oversees the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, Inc.
In the past two years, reverse vesting orders (“RVOs”) have gone from obscurity to being the tool of choice in many complex restructurings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (the “CCAA”). As restructuring practitioners increasingly employ RVOs, it begs the question: Will RVOs replace traditional CCAA plans?
This week’s TGIF looks at the decision of the Federal Court of Australia in Donoghue v Russells (A Firm)[2021] FCA 798 in which Mr Donoghue appealed a decision to make a sequestration order which was premised on him ‘carrying on business in Australia' for the purpose of section 43(1)(b)(iii) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) (Act).
Key Takeaways
In brief
Against the backdrop of the COVID-19 pandemic and soon-to-be-rescinded government support schemes, local principal Emmanuel Chua and associate Shriram Jayakumar at Baker & McKenzie Wong & Leow in Singapore discuss three key trends to look for in the “new normal.”
Contents
1 はじめに
日本では高齢化社会を迎え、経営者の高齢化が進む中で、中小企業の円滑な事業承継が喫緊の課題となっています。とりわけ、2020年2月以降のコロナ禍による業績悪化や過剰債務も重なり、事業承継を検討している中小企業の経営者やその関係者は少なくないものと思われます。
本稿では、中小企業が事業承継や事業再生・廃業を行う局面において、「経営者保証ガイドライン」が果たす役割・機能等について、実務上の留意点を踏まえて最新動向を解説します。
2 経営者保証ガイドラインの策定
中小企業では経営への規律付けや信用補完のために経営者保証がされることがあります。もっとも、この経営者保証について、中小企業の円滑な事業承継や、経営が行き詰った際に早期の事業再生や経営者の再チャレンジを阻害するなど様々な課題が指摘されていました。
Welcome to the next edition of the insolvency insight bulletin from the insolvency specialists at Quadrant Chambers. All cases link to the relevant judgments.
Legislation
When COVID-19 hit Australia in 2020, there were widespread fears about the economic impact of the health crisis, with a predicted avalanche of insolvencies. Many of us greeted 2021 with optimism, hoping for the world to open up as we adjusted to the ‘new normal’. Instead, the virulent Delta strain and snap state lockdowns are keeping the country on edge. While the health crisis continues, the economic crash has been largely avoided.