Year in Review – Latin America in 2016

Argentina

Sovereign debt restructuring: On April 22, 2016, after Congress approved a settlement proposal, Argentina issued US$16.5bn of new debt securities in the international capital markets, and applied US$9.3bn of these proceeds to satisfy settlement payments on agreements with holders.          

In Ambiente Ufficio S.p.A. and others v Argentine Republic, an ICSID tribunal held that it had general jurisdiction over a multi-party claim commenced by 90 distinct Italian nationals against Argentina in respect of harm said to result from Argentina’s default and later partial restructuring of its sovereign debt. It might at first blush appear that the tribunal’s willingness to admit a 90-party claim is an affirmation of the favourable approach to so-called “mass claims” taken by its “sister tribunal” in Abaclat (and others) v The Argentine Republic.

Directors of Australian companies face significant personal monetary – and potential criminal and adverse professional – consequences if they allow the company to trade whilst insolvent.

Australian insolvent trading laws are harsher, and more frequently utilised to prosecute directors personally, than in many other jurisdictions including in the US and the UK.

Accordingly, frequent assessment of a company’s solvency by its directors is crucial, particularly in financially difficult times, as are active steps to address any potential insolvency.

Directors of Australian companies face significant personal monetary − and potential criminal and adverse professional - consequences if they allow the company to trade whilst insolvent.

Australian insolvent trading laws are harsher, and more frequently utilised to prosecute directors personally, than in many other jurisdictions including in the US and the UK.

Accordingly, frequent assessment of a company's solvency by its directors is crucial, particularly in financially difficult times, as are active steps to address any potential insolvency.

The COVID-19 outbreak, this week declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization, is presenting new and unprecedented challenges for businesses across the globe, including in Australia. Challenging trading conditions are bringing into sharp relief the duty of directors to avoid trading whilst the company is insolvent. The safe harbour provisions in the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) provide an opportunity for directors to weather the storm, whilst avoiding personal liability for insolvent trading.

The perception of Australia as being a relatively “risky” place to sit on a Board has generally focused on the insolvent trading prohibition in section 588G of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and how it interacts with general directors’ duties.^[1]

Shandong Chenming Paper Holdings Limited v Arjowiggins HKK 2 Limited CACV 158/2017 (date of judgment 5 August 2020)¹

Introduction

As U.S.-based companies file for bankruptcy at record rates, international suppliers of products to those companies are feeling the pinch. Payments for past due invoices often are not paid promptly unless the supplier is a “critical vendor” to the filing entity. The financial impact to suppliers, however, may go far beyond mere non-payment. Suppliers may actually find themselves facing lawsuits seeking the return of payments they’ve already received. Fortunately, three steps suppliers can take now can help should they find themselves facing such a suit and needing legal assistance.

In March 2020, Business Secretary Alok Sharma announced that provisions on wrongful trading would be suspended. The move came as part of a wider package of measures that sought to provide assistance to businesses – and their beleaguered boards – experiencing financial distress due to Covid-19.

Now set out in the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (CIGA), which was passed on 26 June 2020, the provisions adapt the wrongful trading regime making directors’ liability for the “relevant period” unlikely.

Why does it matter?

Shenzhen Everich Supply Chain Co, Ltd (in Liquidation in the Mainland of the People's Republic of China) [2020] HKCFI 965 (date of judgment: 4 June 2020)

For the second time the Hong Kong Court has recognised a PRC winding-up proceeding and granted assistance to the administrator of a PRC company appointed by a PRC Court. The Hong Kong Court also granted the administrator an express right to take control of the company's subsidiaries in Hong Kong.

Background