What's the issue?

Many commercial contracts for the supply of goods or services contain clauses (known as ipso facto clauses) which allow a party to terminate in the event that the other enters into an insolvency process. Concerns have grown that termination under these circumstances restricts the ability of the company in trouble to engage in a successful restructuring or rescue (of either the company or the business) which can result in a negative impact on creditors.

What's the development?

On 20 April 2020, Singapore’s Ministry of Law announced the commencement of Parts 1, 2 and 3 of the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) Act (the “Act”)  and the regulations for businesses and individuals to comply with (the “Regulations”) in order to seek a temporary suspension of eligible contractual obligations for an initial relief period between 20 April 2020 and 19 October 2020 (referred to as the “Relief Period”).

The lender's dilemma

Lenders who take security over shares in an English company have to decide whether to take either:

• a legal mortgage by becoming registered owner of the shares
• an equitable mortgage or charge with the chargor remaining the registered owner.

A legal mortgage gives the lender the right to vote subject to the terms of the mortgage document and prevents the chargor from disposing of legal title to the shares to a third party, as the lender is the registered owner of the shares.

The UK government announced on 26 August 2018 that it will legislate to update the restructuring and insolvency systems, with the aim of the UK retaining the gold standard regime. The reforms are a response to international developments (with countries such as Spain and the Netherlands recently introducing updated insolvency systems) and some domestic corporate collapses which have put the UK system under stress.

The reforms are wide-ranging. Headline changes will include:

Key Points

• There is a low threshold for the granting of an injunction to prevent the presentation of a winding up petition.

• The challenge against the debt in the statutory demand must be in good faith and have sufficient substance.

The Facts

The Facts

In between the presentation of a winding up petition and making of a winding up order, a company entered into a settlement agreement with the Respondent, who founded the company and was previously a shareholder and director of the company.

The Decision

Background

German insolvency law prohibits managing directors from making payments on behalf of the company after it has become illiquid or over-indebted. This does not apply to payments made when acting with the due care and diligence of a prudent business manager. Such payments are privileged as they do not reduce the insolvency estate and do not disadvantage creditors if they allow the business to continue and enable corporate recovery.

Decision

In 2021, the German legislator changed the rules of conduct by inserting a further section into the German Insolvency Code (InsO).

Background

In a recent ruling, the Austrian Supreme Court has defined de facto managing directors and their obligations and liabilities in connection to wrongful trading.

The decision

The key takeaways from the ruling are:

Following the introduction of the Dutch Court Approval of a Private Composition (Prevention of Insolvency) Act (the WHOA), the first court approval for a private composition was granted on 19 February 2021.