Introduction

In the matter of Aquadis, the Quebec Court of Appeal recently rendered a decision on the power of a judge supervising restructuring proceedings under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act ("CCAA") to approve a plan of arrangement giving the monitor the power to exercise rights against third parties on

Shenzhen Everich Supply Chain Co, Ltd (in Liquidation in the Mainland of the People's Republic of China) [2020] HKCFI 965 (date of judgment: 4 June 2020)

For the second time the Hong Kong Court has recognised a PRC winding-up proceeding and granted assistance to the administrator of a PRC company appointed by a PRC Court. The Hong Kong Court also granted the administrator an express right to take control of the company's subsidiaries in Hong Kong.

Background

The High Court, in Quinn v Toon [2020] NZHC 816, confirmed that only the reasonable costs of the liquidators will be recoverable.

Ms Toon applied for orders under ss 276 and 278 of the Companies Act 1993 to approve her remuneration claiming $101,729 plus GST and expenses for her work as the liquidator of Investacorp Holdings Ltd.

This was a solvent liquidation.  While there were no creditors, there were disputes between shareholders that Ms Toon spent a considerable amount of time investigating.

In BWG v BWF [2020] SGCA (“BWG”) the Singapore Court of Appeal considered the application of the “prima facie dispute” ground which a Singapore debtor (the Respondent) raised to resist winding up proceedings when there was a valid arbitration agreement. The Court of Appeal considered this in circumstances where the Appellant alleged that the debtor’s position in the winding up proceedings is allegedly an abuse of process which is inconsistent with the position the debtor has taken in other proceedings against X.

It is imperative that companies in financial distress prioritise their continued existence and consider business rescue as an alternative to liquidation. One of the major advantages of the business rescue process is the moratorium (stay) on legal proceedings which aims to give financially distressed companies sufficient breathing space to trade out of its insolvency. A temporary moratorium automatically comes into operation upon the filing of a resolution placing the company into business rescue or the issuing of an application for an order to this effect.

The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill (“Bill”) published on 20 May 2020 proposes to introduce a number of significant reforms to UK restructuring and insolvency law . The scope of the Bill is wide ranging and includes measures to protect companies in financial difficulty as a result of the current pandemic. Several of the provisions contained in the Bill will have particular impact on the landlord and tenant relationship during the current COVID-19 crisis, which is the focus of this article.

Temporary prohibition against petitions on the basis of statutory demands

As Covid19 continues to wreak havoc around the globe, its devastating impact on Thailand’s economy is becoming increasingly apparent. With its borders closed to international travelers for the foreseeable future, Thailand’s tourism industry, whose revenues account for more than 15% of the country’s total GDP, has been largely decimated. Businesses heavily reliant on tourism have closed their doors in the thousands – and many companies who were already experiencing financial difficulties pre-Covid19 have now been pushed over the edge into insolvency. 

No, says the Delaware Bankruptcy Court in In re Maxus Energy Corp. In Maxus, the defendant, Vista Analytical Laboratory, Inc. (“Vista” or the “Defendant”), a designated critical vendor, sought summary judgement dismissing the preference complaint. The Court denied summary judgement finding that the critical vendor status did not per se insulate Vista from preference actions.

Background

The transaction involved the restructuring of certain loan facilities via creditors' schemes of arrangement (Schemes). Prior to implementation, the Schemes terminated automatically by their terms as certain required payments had not been made by the relevant condition precedent satisfaction date.