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.
In many bankruptcy cases, disappointing recoveries lead creditors to look for deep pockets as targets. This scrutiny is frequently directed at a bankrupt company’s directors and officers (D&Os or fiduciaries) in so-called D&O suits. These lawsuits are most often brought by bankruptcy trustees, creditors’ committees, liquidating trusts, and other bankruptcy estate representatives.
This week’s TGIF considers the decision of In the matter ofCohalan & Mitchell Roofing (in liquidation)[2020] VSC 222, where the Supreme Court of Victoria refused to grant an extension of time for filing voidable transaction proceedings.
Background
This week’s TGIF considers the decision in McCallum, in the Matter of Re Holdco Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed)[2020] FCA 666, where the Court granted leave for administrators to sell assets in which third parties claimed ownership or security interests, after determining that those interests were adequately protected.
Key takeaways
For the past several months, businesses across the country have grappled with the question of whether the pandemic and local “stay at home” or “shelter in place” orders aimed at curbing the spread of COVID-19 trigger force majeure clauses in their leases and other contracts. In one of the first cases to consider this question, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois held in In re Hitz Restaurant Group that a restaurant tenant was entitled to a rent reduction under its force majeure clause due to Illinois Gov. J.B.
In a decision released on March 11, 2020, the Ontario Court of Appeal provided reassurance for those in the construction industry of the effectiveness of section 9(1) of the Construction Act, RSO c C.30 (“CA”) in insolvency proceedings. This decision did not overturn the previous decision rendered in Re Veltri Metal Products Co (2005), 48 CLR (3d) 161 (Ont CA) (“Veltri”); rather, the Court of Appeal distinguished the two cases on the facts.
This article follows the #HardwickeBrew on 28th May 2020 which looked at the Corporate Insolvency & Governance Bill. If you would like to take part in future #HardwickeBrews, please sign up via our Events page.
Introduction
- This note reviews the provisions relating to the moratorium procedure for Great Britain under the draft Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill (“CIGB”).
CIGB