The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (Coronavirus) (Amendment of Schedule 10 Regulations 2021) (the “Regulations”) will modify CIGA by extending certain restrictions on the use of winding up petitions, albeit on a more limited basis, in line with the tapering of government support measures introduced to combat the economic impact of COVID-19.

Antitrust team leader Edoardo Cazzato joins the firm with team

Insolvency proceedings are typically launched by an administrator or liquidator during an insolvency process. The nature of modern insolvency litigation, including the market for assigning causes of action to third parties, has somewhat muddied the waters on how and where to commence proceedings. Two recent cases provide some valuable insight into the High Court’s approach.

On September 8, 2021, A.B.C. Carpet Co., Inc., dba ABC Carpet & Home, along with two affiliates, filed a petition under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (Lead Case No. 21-11591). ABC Carpet & Home is a New York City-based luxury furniture retailer. The company estimates $10 to $50 million in assets and $50 to $100 million in liabilities.

In a relationship between a creditor and debtor, the issue of liability is always a cause of concern. This is made even more apparent when there is more than one debtor involved as the terms of liability is not necessarily clear. Among the popular issues of contention is whether the debtors’ liability is joint or joint and several. In this commentary, we will explore this artificial distinction through the recent Federal Court case of Lembaga Kumpulan Wang Simpanan Pekerja v. Edwin Cassian Nagappan @ Marie [2021] 1 LNS 928.

The Court at first instance held that the Applicants failed to establish that the Company was insolvent. The key findings that informed the Associate Judge’s conclusions included the following:

• the funds that were available to the Company to pay its debts included funds in an offset account in the name of the director (and an account in the name of the director’s wife); and
• the Applicants’ claims were based on unreconciled accounts of the Company.

The Applicants were granted leave to appeal and appealed the decision of the Court a quo.

Introduction

Rather unfortunately, there are no statutory provisions available to a company to set aside a statutory demand. If a company is served with a statutory demand and disputes the alleged debt, save for agreeing with the alleged creditor not to present a winding-up petition, it has no alternative but to seek relief from the court and obtain an injunction restraining the presentation of a winding-up petition.

A hotly anticipated decision in the ongoing saga of the Babcock & Brown liquidation was handed down last week, resulting in another win for the liquidator (represented by Johnson Winter & Slattery) and further highlighting the challenges facing liquidators when they are thrust into a quasi-judicial function when assessing proofs of debt.

Johnson & Johnson currently has approximately 25,000 lawsuits pending against it related to its talc products, including talcum powder and baby powder

On 2 August 2021, Treasury released a consultation paper on proposed reforms to improve creditors’ schemes of arrangement in Australia. The proposed reforms are intended to complement the simplified liquidation and debt restructuring process introduced for small businesses on 1 January 2021, as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.

What is a scheme of arrangement?