Here’s a question about the new Uniform Assignment for Benefit of Creditors Act (the “Uniform ABC Act”):

• Is a liquidation under the Uniform ABC Act a good thing or a bad thing for the debtor’s unsecured trade creditors?

The answer is easy: it’s a good thing.

The Uniform Law Commission (“ULC”) is the same organization that brought us the Uniform Commercial Code, the Uniform Trust Code, and other “Uniform” state laws.

The ULC is now offering a Uniform Assignment for Benefit of Creditors Act (the “Uniform ABC Act”).

The new Uniform ABC Act codifies the common law of ABCs. Such common law has its foundation in the law of trusts: i.e., debtor is the trustor, assignee is the trustee, and debtor’s creditors are the beneficiaries.

Key Takeaways:

Effective January 1, 2026, the new Illinois Receivership Act will come effective to provide litigators in Illinois with expanded tools for creditors and distressed businesses to protect and manage assets during a business downturn. The Act does not apply to residential real estate with 1-6 dwelling units unless used for commercial purposes, receiverships under other laws such as the Illinois Mortgage Foreclosure Law and governmental receiverships.

A distressed merger and acquisition (“M&A”) is essentially a sub-category of a conventional M&A, which involves sales of shares or assets of companies that are in financial turmoil and these companies are being placed under administration, receivership and/or liquidation. Due to the unprecedented Covid-19 pandemic, distressed M&A transactions have become more common in recent years with companies in financial and operational distress looking to dispose of their assets to better manage high illiquidity as well as reducing over-indebtedness risk.

I’m serving on a Drafting Committee of the Uniform Law Commission for a uniform law on assignment for benefit of creditors (“ABC”). A draft of such a uniform law is coming together, with lots of input from many people and organizations. But we are always looking for more input. So, if you’d like to participate in the drafting process, let me know.

New Zealand’s economy, like many others, has been significantly impacted by global events such as the COVID-19 pandemic hangover (inflation, supply chain shocks and high interest rates). These events have led to an increase in distressed M&A activity as healthy companies seek to acquire those in financial distress. Distressed M&A is not without its challenges. The uncertainty of the distressed company’s true value, potential liabilities, and the risk of subsequent insolvency proceedings can deter potential acquirers.

In the Matter of Holt Fund SPC (Unreported, 26 January 2024) is the first occasion where an application has been made to appoint Restructuring Officers over portfolios of a segregated portfolio company. At first glance the judgment appears uncontroversial. However, it highlights a lacuna in the law which readers should be aware of.

Background

The Petitioner sought the appointment of Restructuring Officers (ROs) in respect of two segregated portfolios of the Holt Fund SPC.

A recent court decision considers the legal principles and sufficiency of evidence when a court-appointed receiver seeks approval of their remuneration.

A court-appointed receiver needs court approval for the payment of their remuneration. The receiver has the onus of establishing the reasonableness of the work performed and of the remuneration sought.

Peter Bowden heads Gilbert + Tobin’s Restructuring + Insolvency group.

He specialises in front-end restructuring and insolvency and has significant experience advising hedge funds, banks, special situations groups, investment banks, insolvency practitioners, creditors and debtors on all elements of restructuring, insolvency, liability management, workouts, banking and distressed debt transactions in a range of industries including financial services, energy, mining, mining services, property, construction, agriculture and manufacturing.