In recent years, it has become common practice in large chapter 11 cases for debtors to include language in their proposed chapter 11 plan which purports to release certain nondebtors from the claims of third parties. Although some third parties may consent to the release—such as by voting in favor of the plan or otherwise electing to do so during the plan solicitation process—circumstances frequently arise in which the debtors seek approval from the bankruptcy court to release nondebtors from third parties’ claims without the consent of the third parties.

In brief

Australia's borders may be closed, but from the start of the pandemic, Australian courts have continued to grapple with insolvency issues from beyond our shores. Recent cases have expanded the recognition of international insolvency processes in Australia, whilst also highlighting that Australia's own insolvency regimes have application internationally.

Key takeaways

In brief

Simplified Insolvency Programme (“SIP”)

In brief

Even with the fiscal stimulus and other measures taken by the Federal and State governments in Australia, corporate insolvencies are likely to increase in coming months.

Under Australia's insolvency regimes, a distressed company may be subject to voluntary administration, creditor's voluntary winding up or court ordered winding up (collectively, an external administration). Each of these processes raises different issues for the commencement and continuation of court and arbitration proceedings.

The Court of Appeal (CA) recently dismissed an appeal to set aside a statutory demand arising out of the failure to pay margin calls in But Ka Chon v. Interactive Brokers LLC (02/08/2019, CACV 611/2018) [2019] HKCA 873, despite the presence of a mandatory arbitration clause. Obiter comments of the CA put into question the recent case law in Re Southwest Pacific Bauxite (HK) Ltd [2018] 2 HKLRD 449 (the “Lasmos case“) that a petition should “generally be dismissed” in the face of a mandatory arbitration clause.  

Some key points 

In brief

With the courts about to consider a significant and long standing controversy in the law of unfair preferences, suppliers to financially distressed companies, and liquidators, should be aware that there have been recent significant shifts in the law about getting paid in hard times.

The current Dutch Bankruptcy Code dates back to 1893 when it was first enacted, has aged nicely and still functions well despite the now existing international financial markets and complex financial instruments that could not have been imagined 127 years ago. Although many changes were made since its inception, the Dutch Bankruptcy Code has never had a major overhaul, even though many initiatives were launched over the years.

The Singapore Court of Appeal has clarified the standard of review that applies to winding-up applications where the underlying relationship between the debtor and creditor is subject to an arbitration agreement.

Background

Under Section 254(2)(a) of the Singapore Companies Act, a company can be wound-up by the court upon the application of a creditor who has served a statutory demand on the company for a debt of SGD 10,000 or more and the debt continues to remain unpaid for three weeks thereafter.

On 15 July 2019, UNCITRAL formally approved a new model law (linked here) for enterprise group insolvencies on how to administer group insolvencies across multiple jurisdictions. A lesson learnt from the 2008 global financial crisis when we saw the collapse of Lehman Brothers was the absence of legislation that dealt with group insolvencies. This has been identified as a major gap in UNCITRAL’s model law on cross-border insolvency (MLCBI).

This week’s TGIF considers the latest of two recent Federal Court decisions approving the compromise of debts owed to a company in liquidation, on the application of liquidators pursuant to section 477(2A) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and on confidential terms.

Key takeaways