Legal Notice 373 of 2020 The Companies Act (Suspension of Filing for Dissolution and Winding Up) Regulations (the “Regulations”) was published on the 15th of September 2020. Back in March, the Conference of European Restructuring and Insolvency Law (CERIL) published an Executive Statement highlighting the importance of countries across Europe to adapt their insolvency legislation in light of the “current extraordinary economic situation” the world has found itself in as a result of COVID-19.
The Ninth Circuit, in Blixseth v. Credit Suisse, 961 F.3d 1074, 1078 (9th Cir. 2020), issued a significant decision on the issue of whether nonconsensual third-party releases are ever permitted in Chapter 11 plans. Distinguishing its prior decisions on the topic, the Ninth Circuit permitted a nonconsensual third-party release that was limited to the exculpation of participants in the reorganization from claims based on actions taken during the case.
Statutory Background
In terms of the Companies Act, a company may be dissolved in one of two manners: either on a voluntary basis, which may take place either by way of a members’ winding up or a creditors’ winding up, or, by Court order.
Last February, we blogged about the Third Circuit’s decision in In re Energy Future Holdings Corp, No. 19-1430, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 4947 (Feb. 18, 2020). The Third Circuit approved a process for resolving asbestos claims in which a bar date was imposed on filing the claims, but late claimants who were unaware of their asbestos claims would be allowed to have the bar date excused through Bankruptcy Rule 3003(c)(3). (A bar date is a date set by the court by which all claims against the debtor must be filed.
Recent changes in the Australian regulation of third-party funders will have a dramatic effect on the funding of certain disputes. Although these changes were accompanied by Government and industry commentary that they would not affect litigation funding for insolvency-related claims, this may not be the case for all insolvency funding arrangements.
In 2018, Saudi Arabia's Ministry of Commerce and Investment (MOCI) published a new Bankruptcy Law aiming to provide bankrupt or insolvent debtors the opportunity to reorganize or rescue their business and streamlining the liquidation process to ensure fairer distribution to creditors upon liquidation. The new Bankruptcy Law is also intended to improve the investment environment and attract more investments to Saudi Arabia and reinforce confidence in the credit market and financial transactions. These goals are in line with the country's goals for Saudi Vision 2030.
Liquidators need to be mindful that a disclaimer of property may be challenged. The Supreme Court of Victoria underscored a key issue in establishing "prejudice" to creditors in a liquidation, holding that a disclaimer of property may be set aside where the liquidators are indemnified.
The government has confirmed that restrictions on commercial landlords on presenting a winding-up petition against tenants that have not paid rent are to be extended to the end of 2020.
The announcement follows confirmation last week that it has extended its moratorium preventing the eviction of commercial tenants for non-payment of rent until the end of 2020.
Whilst the announcement will be welcomed by tenants supporting them into the important Christmas trading period, landlords will undoubtedly feel that their own financial position is being ignored.
In the second part of our coverage of the Companies (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Covid-19) Act 2020 (the Act), we consider amendments made to certain insolvency provisions of the Companies Act 2014 (the 2014 Act). All of these measures apply for an "interim period", expiring on 31 December 2020 (unless extended by Government).
Dividends
The New Jersey Appellate Division recently discharged a creditor’s judgment lien on the debtor’s property after the debtor declared bankruptcy and had the underlying debt discharged. SeeCooper Electric Supply Co., v. J & Jay Electric, Inc., 2020 WL 5496490 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Sept. 11, 2020). In 2008, plaintiff obtained a judgment against defendant and docketed the judgment. Although plaintiff received a writ of execution, the record was not clear on if plaintiff ever levied on defendant’s house.