The Western Australia Court of Appeal has provided clarity concerning insolvency practitioner independence following pre-administration services and whether those pre-administration services can disentitle insolvency practitioners to remuneration.

Commercial insolvencies are expected to steadily increase in the near-term due to higher interest rates, supply chain disruption and corresponding increased commodity costs. A rise in commercial insolvencies will increase the likelihood that businesses will be impacted by a formal insolvency proceeding, whether as a creditor, supplier, customer or other stakeholder. It is, therefore, important for businesses to understand how to strategize in the context of both newly initiated and ongoing insolvency proceedings.

Introduction

Restructuring and insolvency proceedings often span different jurisdictions, requiring the cooperation of the respective countries' insolvency regimes. In its role as an international hub for restructuring and insolvency, Singapore has in place a framework for the effective management of cross-border insolvency proceedings. This takes the form of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency, which has been enacted in Singapore in an adapted form ("SG Model Law").

The Supreme Court has provided welcome clarity for insolvency practitioners in confirming that administrators of a company appointed pursuant to the Insolvency Act 1986 ("IA 1986") will not be criminally liable for a failure by the company to comply with redundancy notification requirements.

In an application filed by Vishram Narayan Panchpor, resolution professional of Blue Frog Media Private Limited (“Corporate Debtor”) in the matter of M/s Blue Frog Media Private Limited¹ for approval of a resolution plan, the Mumbai bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT Mumbai”) ruled that the object of Section 29A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) requires a resolution professional to conduct adequate due diligence on a prospective resolution applicant and its related parti

Is a court order necessary for security interests granted after the appointment of external administrators? Perhaps not.

On 19 July 2023, the parliament of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Luxembourg) passed bill no. 6539A into law (the New Insolvency Law), marking a significant milestone in the movement to modernise and enhance the competitiveness of Luxembourg’s insolvency framework. The bill has been under discussion for a number of years and aims to curtail the use of bankruptcy as an insolvency solution in favour of the preemptive preservation or reorganisation of financially distressed companies.

If an employer intends to make 20 or more employees redundant, at one establishment, within a 90-day period, they must notify the Secretary of State at least 30 days before the first dismissal, as per Section 193(2) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (“TULRCA”). Failure to adhere to this requirement is a criminal offence. This legislation has been of great concern to insolvency practitioners who are often dealing with companies in a precarious position and do not have the luxury of time to comply with Section 193(2) TULRCA.

In 2018, Singapore enacted the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act (IRDA 2018), which streamlined its debt restructuring regime by consolidating provisions previously set out in various statutes into a piece of omnibus legislation.

Among other developments, the IRDA 2018 built upon existing provisions relating to pre-packed schemes of arrangement (i.e. pre-packed schemes) and enhanced pre-packed schemes as a viable tool in Singapore’s arsenal of debt restructuring mechanisms.

Amendments to the director disqualification regime, enacted in 2015, enable the Insolvency Service (on the request of a creditor of an insolvent company) to seek a compensatory remedy against a disqualified director for the benefit of the creditor(s). This empowers a creditor to take action where an insolvency officer may be unable, or unwilling, to do so.