In this issue, we consider Qantas’ recent Full Federal Court win in its JobKeeper stoush with the union, and the interpretation of who is entitled to the COVID-19 cash flow boosts following on from the AAT’s decision in Slatter Building Group Pty Ltd and Commissioner of Taxation (Taxation) [2021] AATA 456. We also provide an update on the latest appeals, ATO guidance and rulings.

Buckle up, Qantas’ fight over JobKeeper entitlements isn’t over yet

We previously discussed the Court's decision in Yukon (Government of) v Yukon Zinc Corporation, 2020 YKSC 16, which opened the door to partial termination of agreements in a receivership, an action generally considered to not be permitted in the past.

In its recent decision in Net International Property Limited v Erez, the Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal considered whether the BVI Courts had jurisdiction at common law to recognize an insolvency office-holder appointed in the courts of Israel, and whether and to what extent the BVI Courts could grant assistance to that office-holder at common law.

A debtor may file a petition to be adjudicated in bankruptcy in three ways: the ordinary petition, the prepackage petition, and the imminent general default petition.

KEY POINTS The risk that prepetition lease payments made by a lessee that is a debtor in a US bankruptcy will be clawed back from an aircraft lessor can be reduced if: • the lease is a true lease rather than a disguised secured loan or finance lease • one or both of basic rent and maintenance reserves are payable in advance (i.e., at the beginning of a rent period rather than at the end) • basic rent and maintenance reserves are payable monthly rather than quarterly or semiannually • the lessor enforces the lease’s payment obligations consistently • any payment made by a third party on beha

简介

债务偿还安排计划是一个重组公司债务的方法，让公司与其债权人或任何类别债权人订立安排 或达成妥协。在香港，香港法例第 622 章《公司条例》第 13 部规管有关安排及妥协。法院可 下令债权人就拟议订立的安排或妥协举行会议，并可在其后认许某安排或妥协，前提是在出席 该会议且有投票的债权人中，占当中价值最少 75%的过半数债权人或类别债权人同意该安排 或妥协。

在英国，《2006 年公司法》第 26 部列出有关债务偿还安排计划的相关规定。最近在英国 Port Finance Investment Limited [2021] EWHC 378 (Ch) 一案中，英国高等法院重申有关更改针对 第三方之权利及类别组合的原则。

背景

The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill was published on 20 May 2020 and went through an accelerated parliamentary process, receiving Royal Assent on 25 June 2020 (with the provisions coming into force on 26 June 2020).

The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (“CIGA”) introduces a mixture of permanent and temporary “debtor friendly” measures to restructuring and insolvency law in England and Wales and in Scotland, jurisdictions which have historically been viewed as being “creditor friendly”.

The Supreme Court in the case of Laxmi Pat Surana vs Union Bank of India & Anr. [Civil Appeal No. 2734 of 2020] (“Laxmi Pat”) has settled the issue of the applicability of Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (“LimitationAct”) to applications for initiation of insolvency proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”).

引言

香港法院最近在Re Ando Credit Ltd [2020] HKCFI 2775一案中，首次批准一家香港公司任命临时清盘人[1]，并明确旨在允许该临时清盘人向中国内地法院寻求内地法律的承认和执行。

Executive Summary

On March 15, 2021, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals (the “Third Circuit”) held that a stalking horse bidder may assert an administrative expense claim pursuant to section 503(b)(1)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code for costs incurred in attempting to close on an unsuccessful transaction, even when the stalking horse bidder is not entitled to a breakup or termination fee.