New York Bankruptcy Judge Sean H. Lane determined that the Australian debtors in a Chapter 15 foreign recognition proceeding satisfied the U.S. property requirements of Section 109(a) of the Bankruptcy Code on the basis of attorney retainers and claims against insiders located in the U.S.

This week’s TGIF considers the case of In the matter of Specialist Australian Security Group Pty Ltd (in liq) [2018] VSC 199 in which the Court considered the priority of administrators' right to an indemnity out of company property.

Background

The Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee has endorsed the passing of the Bankruptcy Amendment (Enterprise Incentives) Bill 2017 in its report dated 21 March 2018.

The Bill will align the bankruptcy period in Australia with the United Kingdom. Under the Bankruptcy Act 1996, the period of bankruptcy (unless a successful objection is made) is three years. If passed, the Bill will reduce the period to one year.

Key points to note are that:

Following the implementation of the Safe Harbor protections introduced last September, new changes to the Corporations Act 2001 come into force on 1 July 2018, significantly limiting the ability of parties to rely on insolvency as a means to terminate a contract. These changes intend to help facilitate the restructure and turnaround of struggling companies and are being hailed by insolvency practitioners as a long overdue softening of existing insolvency laws.

Foreign representatives may be required to pay security into court for their recognition applications under the Model Law on Cross Border Insolvency (Model Law). The measure is proposed to correct irregularities between proceedings conducted in multiple jurisdictions.

A recent NSW Supreme Court decision has decided that an insolvent contractor can claim under Security of Payment legislation, rejecting Victorian Court of Appeal precedent as "plainly wrong". It might have significant ramifications for participants in the building and construction industry across Australia.

In Seymour Whyte Constructions Pty Ltd v Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd (in liq) [2018] NSWSC 412, the NSW Supreme Court considered the extent to which Security of Payment (SOP) legislation can be relied upon by an insolvent contractor.

The entitlement to recover remuneration and costs for work performed in conducting an external administration is an ever-present fundamental concern for insolvency practitioners.

The Victorian Court of Appeal and a Full Court of the Federal Court have each recently held that the statutory priority regime applies to the winding up of companies that act as trustees of trading trusts, confirming that employee claims and a liquidator’s remuneration and costs are priority debts. Special leave to appeal the Court of Appeal’s decision has been sought.

Key Summary

The Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia has held that the Commissioner of Taxation’s (Commissioner) formal information gathering powers override the obligation imposed on a party to litigation not to use information or documents disclosed by another party for any other purpose outside the proceedings in which they were disclosed (commonly known as the ‘Harman obligation’1).

The New South Wales Supreme Court recently confirmed that an insolvent construction contractor is not able to immediately enforce its right to payment of an adjudication decision under the NSW Security of Payment legislation (Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW)) against another party which has an offsetting claim.