Summary

In an exciting week for insolvency, the Minister for Financial Services, Superannuation and Corporate Law has released a package of reforms to Australia’s corporate insolvency laws. This reform package includes:

On 25 January 2010, the United States Bankruptcy Court handed down its much anticipated decision in relation to an action brought in that court by two Lehman Brothers entities (the Lehman entities) against BNY Corporate Trustee Services Limited (BNY) (the US Decision).

The High Court of Australia’s Sons of Gwalia Ltd v Margaretic (Sons of Gwalia) decision recognised an aggrieved shareholder’s claim for damages (in relation to the acquisition of shares) on equal footing with those of an insolvent company’s other unsecured creditors. Dispute Resolution Associate, Justin Le Blond, examines the Government’s response to the decision.

There have recently been a number of significant developments in relation to schemes of arrangement. These include:

• the Federal Court refusing to make orders convening a meeting of CSR’s shareholders to vote on a demerger proposal by way of scheme, on public policy and commercial morality grounds relating to CSR’s potential asbestos liabilities
• the Government’s corporate law advisory body recommending significant reforms to the scheme regime, and
• developments regarding ‘hostile schemes’.

Each of these developments is discussed below.

The different types of insolvency

When a corporate tenant becomes insolvent, the landlord's rights depend upon the type of insolvency administration to which the tenant is subjected. Being familiar with the different options and the ways in which they are administered will enable property owners to act early and put themselves in the best possible position when faced with an insolvent (or potentially insolvent) tenant.

The three most common forms of insolvency administration which may affect corporate tenants are discussed below.

In a closely-watched case stemming from the demise of the Australian HIH insurance group, the UK House of Lords has ruled in McGrath & Anor & Others v Riddell and Others [2008] UKHL 21 that the English assets of four companies in that group, which are in liquidation in Australia and in ancillary insolvency proceedings in England, must be remitted to Australia for distribution under Australian insolvency law.

If an international airline that is a member of the International Air Transport Association (“IATA”) goes into insolvent external administration under the Australian Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the “Act”), will the IATA Clearing House Regulations (effective January 1, 2006) (the “CH Regulations”) continue to govern the relationship between IATA, the insolvent airline, and the other members of IATA? A recent judgment of Australia’s High Court clarifies these issues.

The House of Lords has ruled that English assets of the HIH group of companies are to be remitted to the Australian liquidators for distribution under Australian law. This briefing discusses the background to McGrath and another and others v Riddell and others [2008] UKHL 21 and the implications of the ruling.

Background

The House of Lords recently had to consider whether the English court should remit assets when faced with a request to do so by a foreign court.

MCGRATH AND ANOTHER v RIDDELL, House of Lords, 9 April 2008

The liquidators of the HIH group of Australian insurance companies appealed against the decisions of the High Court and the Court of Appeal that certain assets of the HIH group, mostly reinsurance claims on policies taken out in the London market, should not be remitted to Australia. The courts instead ordered that the assets should remain in England and be distributed to creditors in accordance with English insolvency laws.

In a July 12, 2007 post, we reported on issues relating to HIH Casualty and General Insurance Limited (“HIH”). The question before the court was whether it had jurisdiction to entertain a request under the Insolvency Act for directions to the liquidators in England to transfer assets collected by them to the liquidators in an Australian liquidation. The Court of Appeal held that it would not direct a transfer of the English assets by the English provisional liquidators to the Australian liquidators because to do so would prejudice the interests of many of the creditors.