Reverse vesting orders (or “RVOs”) allow the realization of value from assets of a debtor company in circumstances where a traditional transaction model is not effective, preserving the value of permits, tax losses and other assets which cannot be transferred to a purchaser. Two recent decisions demonstrate the willingness of courts to embrace creative solutions, where appropriate, to realize value for stakeholders.

What is a Reverse Vesting Order?

The Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA“) proceedings involving Carillion Canada and related entities (collectively, “Carillion Canada”) have been an ongoing area of interest for the construction industry since proceedings began in early 2018.

During the pandemic, the UK Government has put legislative measures in place to protect commercial tenants by preventing landlords from using certain remedies such as forfeiture and winding up petitions. However, the legislation does not specifically prevent a landlord from issuing debt claims against its tenants for arrears of rent and other amounts due under a lease (see the recent case of Commerz Real Investmentgesellschaft mbh v TFS Stores Limited [2021] EWHC 863 (Ch)).

An important judgment handed down by Zacaroli J yesterday in the New Look CVA challenge. The New Look CVA proposal involved treating landlords of different leases in various different ways, including (i) resetting rent to a turnover percentage (ii) keeping rent intact and (iii) reducing rent to nil. Landlords are given the flexibility to terminate leases within a prescribed period where they identify a tenant prepared to pay better rent (important to ensure the landlord's proprietary right is not interfered with). In a CVA, all unsecured creditors are invited to vote.

After last year’s significant reforms to Australia’s insolvency framework, the Government has demonstrated a further commitment to simplifying and streamlining insolvency law to allow viable businesses that encounter economic challenges to restructure and continue trading.

This commitment is demonstrated by the Government continuing to examine ways to improve Australia's insolvency laws, including consulting on options to:

In the recent decision ofBadenoch Integrated Logging Pty Ltd v Bryant, in the matter of Gunns Limited (in liq) (receivers and managers appointed) [2021] FCAFC 64,the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia abolished the use of the peak indebtedness rule in A

Hot on the heels of a trio of decisions concerning offshore provisional liquidation, which opened a new and commendable era for Hong Kong’s cross-border insolvency regime (see https://dvc.hk/en/news/cases-detail/heralding-a-new-and-healthy-era-of-cross-border-insolvency-recognition-in-hong-kong-re-fdg-electric-vehicles-ltd-re-

We summarise the background and outcomes of Case C-73/20 – Oeltrans, an important ruling for liquidators faced with the avoidance of a third party payment and a conflict of laws.

The facts

Welcome to the first Akin Gump client alert sub-titled Make (Whole) a Minute. These alerts are designed to be short digestible updates or commentaries on topics of interest to the institutional investment community that take a minute (or two) to read. And who doesn’t love Make-Whole and a good play on words?

引言

在Re China Huiyuan Group Ltd [2020] HKCFI 2940一案中，原訟法庭拒絕對一家在香港上市的開曼公司進行清盤，因為原訟法庭認為，呈請人未能證明在作出清盤令後，債權人確實有可能獲得實際利益。

案情

SDFIII Holdings Limited（以下簡稱「呈請人」）以資不抵債為由，發出對China Huiyuan Juice Group Limited（以下簡稱「該公司」）進行清盤的呈請。各方對該債務沒有爭議。

該公司在開曼群島註冊成立，並在香港聯交所主板上市。該公司的資產包括在英屬處女群島註冊成立的附屬公司的所有權，該等附屬公司在中國內地擁有附屬公司，而該等附屬公司又擁有該公司的相關資產，並開展生產及其他業務。

對該公司無爭議的是，該公司已資不抵債。該公司要求押後該呈請，以推進該公司的債務重組。由於股份已暫停買賣，而該公司亦面臨潛在的退市問題，該公司認為重組是令集團業務重回正軌的唯一方法，長遠而言，對該公司的債權人是有利的。

因此，法院將裁定是否立即發出清盤令或批准延期。

爭議點

爭議點如下：-