Temporary provisions restricting action to wind up companies and reverse some winding up orders already made are a step closer following presentation of the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill (“Bill”) to the House of Commons on 20 May. The Bill will now work its way through both Houses before imminently becoming law. The Bill includes a number of substantial corporate insolvency changes, but also temporary provisions restricting action to wind up companies in light of Covid-19, on which we focus here.
This case update from our Property, Chancery & Commercial team looks at the issues raised in the recent cases of Dhillion v Barclays Bank, Peter Singh Sangha v Amicus Finance, O v O and Others, and Duval v 11-13 Randolph Crescent.
When will the court refuse to grant rectification of the Land Register for mistake?
The U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Eighth Circuit recently reversed a bankruptcy court’s disallowance of postpetition interest at the default contract rate, holding that “the bankruptcy court erred in applying a liquidated damages analysis and ruling the default interest rate was an unenforceable penalty,” and also erred in weighing “equitable considerations” to avoid enforcing the contractual default interest rate.
Our note provides a high-level guide to securitisation transactions under English law. Written in partnership with Chambers and Partners, it forms the UK-focused section of the Chambers and Partners Global Practice Guide: Securitisation 2020.
This general guide discusses a broad range of topics to provide a helpful overview to those that are looking at a first time securitisation. It also provides guidance on a number of more detailed points to assist with those more experienced in securitisations, including recently regulatory development.
The current Coronavirus crisis is opening up opportunities for competitors as well as investors to purchase businesses in financial distress. While such businesses may be often acquired on advantageous terms, these transactions can also entail various significant legal risks.
A recent judgment of the Supreme Court of Western Australia, Dalian Huarui Heavy Industry International Company Ltd v Clyde & Co Australia [2020] WASC 132 (available here), demonstrates that the use of interim measures to provide security for an amount in dispute can be a very powerful remedy when structured through the creation of a trust.
The Australian government has taken swift action to enact new legislation that significantly changes the insolvency laws relevant to all business as a result of the ongoing developments related to COVID-19
A recent judgment rendered by the Superior Court in the judicial district of Montréal1 is in line with the current trend in rulings regarding the appointment of receivers under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“B.I.A.”), namely the requirement that the notice of exercise of a hypothecary right referred to in the Civil Code of Quebec (“C.C.Q.”) be submitted, and the time limit specified in the notice must have expired, prior to the application to appoint a receiver.
As businesses experience diminishing revenues, falling stock prices, and other economic hardships resulting from Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), some economists project the possibility of an unprecedented number of business bankruptcies. Some of these businesses own brands, and some have entered into relationships, most commonly trademark licenses, under which they allow others to use their brands. What happens to a trademark license when a brand owner becomes insolvent, particularly in the context of a reorganization under Chapter 11?
Even with the economy starting to re-open, many businesses are still struggling to get back on track in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. Chapter 11 bankruptcies are up 26 percent over this time last year, a number that includes businesses in a wide array of industries from large retailers like J. Crew and J.C. Penney to energy companies like Diamond Offshore Drilling and Whiting Petroleum.