In a wide-reaching judgment concerning an appeal by Mighty River International in the administration of Mesa Minerals, the Western Australian Court of Appeal has recognised that a "holding" Deed of Company Arrangement (DOCA) is permissible under Part 5.3A of the Corporations Act.

The key points - Holding DOCAs as a flexible framework

The key points for insolvency and turnaround professionals to take from Mighty River International v. Hughes are:

Liquidators, administrators and receivers in Queensland are on notice that they may face serious personal consequences if they fail to cause companies to which they are appointed to comply with Environmental Protection Orders (EPOs).

Re Linc Energy Limited (In Liquidation) [2017] QSC 53 (13 April 2017) has determined that liquidators may not be able to escape obligations under an EPO by issuing a disclaimer notice.

The giants of Asia – Indonesia, China, and India – raise many opportunities and challenges for insolvency practitioners. Baker McKenzie’s own Andi Kadir spoke this morning about some of the solutions to those problems, showcasing his significant experience with insolvency reforms and opportunities in Indonesia.

Andi highlighted the benefits of the Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang regime as a restructuring tool in Indonesia. A PKPU is a debtor in possession mechanism, somewhat like a blend of a US Chapter 11 administration with aspects of the insolvency laws of the Netherlands.

Litigation funding can form a useful part of the arsenal of an insolvency practitioner when attempting to maximise the return to creditors. Yet funders can be met with suspicion by creditors and courts alike, depending on the country in which you pursue your litigation.

This break out session sought to highlight key issues for funders and borrowers, and regional differences in how litigation funding is perceived and applied.

Some businesses operate in a naturally risky environment where a major crisis event is a real possible consequence of everyday operations. What do you do when something literally blows up?

In the context of the scenario posed for the first day of the conference, this panel considered some of the obligations of the board and the officers of a near insolvent company in managing financial, regulatory, and environmental risks.

Returns to creditors from litigation against associates of the business are often a lucrative way of getting funds into an administration after a corporate failure. Claims are often made against banks, lawyers and accountants associated with the failure. In some cases, those claims may involve chasing other parties for the proceeds of a fraud. Often these claims provide a greater return than chasing down any remaining assets.

In this session, the panellists took up the challenge of predicting the post COVID future for directors, and the immediate challenges they will face as a result of the winding back of protections and support provided in 2020.

What a director wanting to enter the safe harbour must do

Directors in Australia have long had a statutory duty to prevent insolvent trading. The duty is engaged where:

In brief

In brief

Creditors commonly find that their applications to wind up a company are suddenly deferred at the last minute by the appointment of a voluntary administrator.  Now, in the early days of the small business restructuring (Part 5.3B) process, the courts are already grappling with those circumstances in the context of that new regime. At the time of writing1, only four restructuring appointments under Part 5.3B have been notified to ASIC. Two of them have been the subject of court proceedings.

The resulting decisions reveal: