Even with the fiscal stimulus and other measures taken by the Federal and State governments in Australia, corporate insolvencies are likely to increase in coming months.
Under Australia’s insolvency regimes, a distressed company may be subject to voluntary administration, creditor’s voluntary winding up or court ordered winding up (collectively, an external administration). Each of these processes raises different issues for the commencement and continuation of court and arbitration proceedings.
It is well established that by filing a proof of claim in bankruptcy, a creditor submits itself to the equitable jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court and waives any right it would otherwise have to a jury trial with respect to any issue that “bears directly on the allowance of its claim.” Such a waiver normally applies in fraudulent transfer actions, since under Section 502(d) of the Bankruptcy Code the court must disallow a claim of any entity that received an avoidable transfer.
In Lane v. Bank of New York Mellon (In re Lane), No. 18-60059, 2020 WL 2832270 (9th Cir. June 1, 2020), the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit was asked to decide whether a bankruptcy court may void a lien under section 506(d) of the Bankruptcy Code when a claim relating to the lien is disallowed because the creditor who filed the proof of claim did not prove that it was the person entitled to enforce the debt the lien secures. Employing a narrow reading of section 506(d), the Ninth Circuit answered the question in the negative.
“My hospital filed bankruptcy - now what do I do?” This question frequently confronts affected medical providers when faced with the strange and often bewildering new world ushered-in by a hospital bankruptcy. A recent Washington Post article noted that due to the COVID-19 pandemic, “the health-care industry is suffering a historic collapse in business that is emerging as one of the most powerful forces hurting the U.S.
The Government on 20 May 2020 published the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill, which contains the most far-reaching reforms to UK insolvency law in over 30 years. The Bill has been introduced on an emergency basis in an attempt to ensure that otherwise financially viable companies survive during a period of unprecedented interruption and turmoil. However, it could upset the delicate balance between debtors and creditors under UK insolvency law.
The restructuring & insolvency Q&A series provides a comprehensive overview of some of the key points of law and practice of the regulatory environment in Luxembourg. Today's chapter focuses on cross-border / groups.
Can foreign debtors avail of the restructuring and insolvency regime in your jurisdiction?
Following the posting of the article I co-wrote with Morayo Fagborun-Bennett on the Recovery of Commercial and Residential Rent Arrears, there have been a couple of developments of note.
1. On 4 June 2020 the Chancellor handed down his decision in Re Akkurate Ltd (in Liquidation) [2020] EWHC 1433 (Ch). In doing so he brought to an end (at least for now) an ongoing debate as to whether s236 Insolvency Act 1986 (“IA 1986”) has extraterritorial effect, concluding that he was bound by precedent to conclude that it does not but carving out an exception where the Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 on Insolvency Proceedings applies (“the Insolvency Regulation”).
The government recently published its Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill which includes a temporary “ban” on statutory demands. In its current form, the ban will prevent landlords and other creditors from relying on statutory demands served between 1 March and 1 month after the Bill becomes law. The Bill also includes provision to prevent the winding up of companies where their inability to pay is due to Covid 19.