The government has extended the restriction on the enforcement of statutory demands until 31 December 2020. The extension from the initial period of 30 September 2020 was introduced by regulations amending the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 and will be of application to those in the construction industry.

On September 14, 2020, the US Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York recognized the Indonesian court-supervised restructuring plan for the Indonesian Duniatex textiles group ("Duniatex Group") under Chapter 15¹. Chapter 15 is a powerful and accessible tool for protection under the US Bankruptcy Code for non-US debtors facing litigation claims in the US.

State Bank of India v. M/s. Metenere Limited^[1]

In a recent case, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal ("NCLAT"), vide its ruling dated May 22, 2020 upheld the order passed by respective National Company Law Tribunal ("NCLT") dated January 4, 2020 with respect to substitution of appointment of an ex-employee of the Financial Creditor as the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP).

Factual Background

On September 30, 2020, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ruled in favor of the assignee of the famous LEHMAN BROTHERS trademark against the registration that mark as a brand name for beer, spirits, and bar and restaurant services, finding that the LEHMAN BROTHERS mark had not been abandoned. Barclays Capital, Inc. v. Tiger Lily Ventures, Ltd. (TTAB, September 30, 2020, non-precedential).

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic has forced big-name brands to pursue unique strategies to secure fiscal relief.

Since filing for Chapter 11 in May 2020, Hertz and its major stakeholders have been in negotiations and, at times, disputes over how best to reduce Hertz’s nearly half-a-million vehicle fleet. These negotiations and disputes have caught the eye of investors in asset-backed securities (“ABS”) and market watchers alike, as the outcome of the case could have rippling effects across the ABS industry and capital markets, generally.

In its most recent decision, Chandos Construction Ltd v Deloitte Restructuring Inc.[1], the Supreme Court of Canada (the “SCC”) reaffirmed the existence of the common law anti-deprivation rule in Canada.

Helix Legal Senior Associate, Sarah Shirley, shares fresh insight from her experiences in the UK. In this article, she looks at insolvency in the construction industry and the role of adjudication.

Globally, insolvency is one of the biggest issues facing construction companies and projects. The Covid-led recession will only add to the pressure already felt by the construction industry.

About a year ago the Dutch Court of Appeal* – confirming the decision of the primary relief judge - rendered an interesting judgment in the field of asset recovery. Currently the case is pending before the Supreme Court. Recently the Advocate General rendered its Advisory Opinion in which he advises the Supreme Court to confirm this decision of the Court of Appeal, and also to clarify its case law regarding immunity from execution.

Introduction

In a not altogether unsurprising blow for aircraft lessors and financiers, an appeal against the earlier decision of the Federal Court of Australia on the interpretation of the phrase ‘give possession of the aircraft object to the creditor’ as used in Article XI of the Protocol to the Convention on International Interests in Mobile Equipment on Matters Specific to Aircraft Equipment (the Aircraft Protocol) in the context of an insolvency has been allowed by the Full Court and various original orders set aside.