Australia has a taxpayer funded scheme which guarantees employee entitlements arising out of liquidation up to statutory caps. It is known as the Fair Entitlements Guarantee Scheme (FEG). The Australian Government has become concerned that questionable practices which rely on FEG to avoid employee entitlement obligations, such as illegal phoenixing, are on the rise and imposing significant costs on FEG and therefore, the Australian taxpayer. The Government has introduced legislative amendments to facilitate the effective recovery of entitlements from parties which take part in these questionable practices. Continue Reading
UNCITRAL draft Model Law on Enterprise Group Insolvency
Posted in AustraliaIn December 2018, UNCITRAL Working Group V (Insolvency Law) held its 54th session in Vienna where it discussed, among other topics, cross border insolvency of enterprise groups. These discussions included amendments to the Enterprise Group Insolvency: Draft Model Law (‘draft Model Law’) and the Enterprise Group Insolvency: Guide to Enactment of the Draft Model Law (‘draft Guide to Enactment’). The Working Group began drafting the Model Law after agreeing to the UNCITRAL mandate in December 2013. Continue Reading
Opposing the National Bankruptcy Conference’s proposal to legislatively repeal Fairfield Sentry
Posted in U.S.On August 20, 2018, the National Bankruptcy Conference (the “NBC”), a group of bankruptcy judges, professors, and professionals that has consulted with Congress on the drafting of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, sent a letter to Congress proposing a series of amendments to Chapter 15, which governs the process for obtaining recognition of a foreign insolvency or restructuring proceeding in the U.S. Continue Reading
English Court of Appeal affirms application of the “Gibbs Rule” in a cross-border restructuring
Posted in Australia, U.S.
Under the English common law rule known as the “Gibbs rule,” a contractual obligation can be changed or discharged only in accordance with the law governing that obligation. Consequently, a debt governed by English law may not be discharged in a foreign insolvency or under a foreign restructuring plan unless the creditor submits to the foreign insolvency proceeding or consents to the plan. Earlier this week, the Court of Appeal of England and Wales affirmed the application of the Gibbs rule in a case under the Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations 2006 (“CBIR”), Great Britain’s version of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency, or Chapter 15 as it is referred to in the U.S. Continue Reading
High Court of Australia rules that “holding” deeds of company arrangements are valid
Posted in Australia
BVI based creditor – Mighty River International Limited – challenged the validity of a “holding” deed of company arrangement (or a ‘holding DOCA’) approved by creditors of Australian miner Mesa Minerals Limited (Company). Continue Reading
Will Singapore become an international center of debt restructuring?
Posted in AustraliaSingapore has set its sights on becoming an “International Center for Debt Restructuring”, approaching the status of London and New York.
Key to achieving that goal, in 2017 Singapore enacted the Companies (Amendment) Act 2017 which effected major legislative changes to restructuring provisions of the Singapore Companies Act (Cap 50) 2006 (referred to hereafter as the “Companies Act”). That legislation has been followed by further reforms with the passage of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 (which passed parliament on 1 October 2018). Continue Reading
AFCA to launch November 1
Posted in Australia
The new Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) launches on November 1, 2018. Financial firms, including superannuation funds, will be required by law to join AFCA. AFCA has increased powers and a broader reach than its predecessor bodies. Continue Reading
Claims against IPs: the rising tide
Posted in EuropeThe role of an IP has always been challenging – taking control of a company in crisis, making swift decisions based on limited information and balancing the competing interests of stakeholders; all of this requires sound judgment, often under extreme pressure. It is no surprise that, when things go wrong (or perhaps more accurately when parties feel they have lost out), the IP can become the focus of blame, and their insurance policy an attractive target for ‘last resort’ litigation.
The traditional situation in which an IP finds themself the target of litigation is one where lenders have enforced personal guarantees against the company’s directors or shareholders. Faced with the prospect of paying out under the guarantee, the director or shareholder responds with a cross claim against the IP1, usually along the lines that the IP breached his/her duties by failing to realize the best price when selling key assets. In other words, a claim that the IP ‘undersold’ those assets2.
However, in the past few years, there has been a noticeable change in the type of claims brought against IPs and their firms, as well as a large uptick in their frequency. Two main themes have emerged.
The first is that claims for ‘underselling’ are increasingly being brought as standalone actions, rather than as a defensive tactic to demands under a guarantee. See, for example, AM Holdings v. Batten & LePage [2018] EWHC 934 and Davey v. Money & Another [2018] EWHC 766 (Ch). Both of these claims were brought by the company or its shareholders as standalone claims that (inter alia) the IPs had undersold the company’s assets. It is notable that both claims were brought after what would ordinarily be perceived as successful administrations – in AM Holdings the company returned to solvency, and in Davey unsecured creditors had received a significant dividend.
The second theme is the rise in claims based on economic torts – most notably claims for unlawful means conspiracy. The most high profile of these claims has arguably been Premier Motor Auctions v. Lloyds Bank and PwC, which was dismissed earlier this year, but there have been (and still are) many similar claims at various stages of proceedings. The typical allegation in such claims is that the IP or their firm unlawfully conspired with a secured creditor (usually a bank) to place the company into an insolvency process with a view to extracting the associated fees and (in the case of the bank) a discounted equity stake in the company.
In this article we look at a number of cases exemplifying these themes and consider: (i) what has driven the increase in them; (ii) what tactics IPs and their firms have used to defend them; and (iii) what the future holds for this type of litigation.
Cambridge Gas resuscitated — Farewell Rubin and Singularis?
Posted in Europe
Cambridge Gas Resuscitated – Farewell Rubin and Singularis?
On September 19, 2018 UNCITRAL published the final text of its new Model Law on Recognition and Enforcement of Insolvency-Related Judgments.
The working group considered the arrested development of the concept of modified universalism following the UK Supreme Court (“UKSC”) judgments in Rubin v Eurofinance SA [2013] 1 AC 236 which overturned a previous decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (“JCPC”) in Cambridge Gas v Navigator Holdings on appeal from the Isle of Man. Continue Reading
Approval of third-party releases under the CCAA: the court lowers the bar in Aquadis
Posted in Canada
A monitor appointed under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) may commence a claim against third parties in the name of the debtor. The purpose of such a claim is obviously to maximize the value of the debtor’s assets for the benefit of its creditors.
In the event the monitor settles a claim with some of the defendants, the latter will usually insist on obtaining a full and complete court-approved release. Courts will generally approve the release if it is fair and reasonable in the circumstances and if the rights (both procedural and substantive) of the non-settling defendants are protected.
In a recent decision, the bar for approving a third-party release was, however, significantly lowered. In the matter of Aquadis,* the court indeed approved a settlement agreement (i) granting release to defendants who did not contribute to the settlement, (ii) offering no procedural protection to the non-settling parties, and (iii) offering very limited protection to the substantive rights of the non-settling parties. Continue Reading