The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has profoundly reshaped the global business landscape. Some companies that only months ago seemed unstoppably profitable have been brought to an existential brink by extended lockdowns, supply chain failures, and other obstacles caused by the pandemic. Other companies who have experienced less disruption (or in some cases windfalls) stand at the threshold of opportunity even as they prepare themselves for the challenges of the 'new normal'.

In May, we reported (please refer to our previous alert available here) that the UK Government's much anticipated reforms to UK insolvency law were introduced in Parliament when the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill 2020 (the "Bill") started its passage in the House of Commons on 20 May 2020.

^{"Whenever there is change, and whenever there is uncertainty, there is opportunity."Mark Cuban, American businessman and investor}

In the current global market, very few things are clear other than that volatility and change are ever-present.

This week’s TGIF examines a recent decision of the NSW Supreme Court which considered whether funds held in certain bank accounts of a failed Ponzi scheme should be returned to investors or paid to creditors of the companies.

What happened?

Since freezing orders were obtained by ASIC in 2017, details surrounding the infamous Courtenay House ‘Ponzi’ scheme operated from a small office at Westfield in Bondi have slowly emerged.

This week’s TGIF considers Wood v Astra Resources Ltd (UK Company No 07620218) [2016] FCA 1192, in which the Federal Court was asked to recognise a foreign proceeding under the Model Law on Cross Border Insolvency.

BACKGROUND

The ability of limited recourse provisions to protect borrowers and financiers against insolvency risks may be weaker due to a recent English court case.

Limited recourse clauses are often used in project and structured finance transactions. Borrowers want to avoid the risk of their directors being liable for trading while insolvent; and financiers may want to avoid the possibility of insolvency clawback actions if they seek to enforce their security documents.

1. The 1992 ISDA Master Agreement: Court of Appeal provides clarity on payment obligations owed to insolvent counterparties

Lomas v JFB Firth Rixson Inc [2012] EWCA Civ 419

On 17 September, the Pension Regulator's Determinations Panel announced that it had issued a determination that six companies within the Lehman Brothers group (including the group's main operating companies in the UK as well as the US parent Lehman Brothers Holding Inc.) should provide financial support to the Lehman Brothers Pension Scheme. This followed a hearing on 8-9 September 2010.

In August we reported that the Court of Appeal had expressed doubts as to whether the EAT in Oakland v Wellswood was right to suggest that pre-pack administrations could be insolvencies "begun with a view to liquidation" (so that TUPE does not apply to transfer employees).

In the first of a two-part series, Will Pearce and Gawain Moore of Herbert Smith LLP examine some of the common tools used for, and issues that arise when, restructuring premium-listed companies.