It has been widely reported that, post Banking Royal Commission, the Australian Securities Investigation Commission (ASIC) will take a "why not litigate?" approach. As we foreshadowed in an article last month, this scrutiny will not be confined to the banking sector but is likely to extend to anyone subject to ASIC oversight.

In New South Wales (NSW), unlike in Victoria, claimants in liquidation have been able to make claims under Security of Payments Acts (SOPA). This has been recently reaffirmed in the case of Seymour Whyte Constructions Pty Ltd v Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) [2019] NSWCA 11 (Seymour), where the court doubled-down on this position and further explained why the NSW position differs from the position taken by the Victorian Court of Appeal in the infamous Faade Treatment Engineering Pty Ltd (in liq) v Brookfield Multiplex Constructions Pty Ltd [2016] VSCA 247 (Faade).

Without enforcement, an arbitration process and subsequent awards can be a pointless exercise. Freezing orders are an important tool in any dispute and a recent decision by the Supreme Court of Western Australia suggests that courts are willing to protect the enforceability of future awards.

In the recent case of Cash Generator Limited v Fortune and others [2018] EWHC 674 (Ch), the Court determined that non-compliance with the deemed consent procedure for nominating liquidators did not invalidate their appointment. The case provides a useful summary on the relatively new provisions governing the deemed consent procedure and welcome relief to Insolvency Practitioners (“IPs”) that a failure to fully comply with such provisions will not necessarily invalidate their appointment.

Brief facts and arguments

Australia’s corporate insolvency regime has undergone significant reform with the passing of the Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Enterprise Incentives No. 2) Bill 2017 (the Bill) through both houses of parliament.

With effect from the commencement of the new financial year in July 2017, the Australian federal and state governments implemented a range of legal and regulatory changes, which could affect entities undertaking or contemplating investments in Australian land, companies or businesses or who are seeking to establish operations in Australia. We have summarised four of these key changes below.

It is anticipated that, by the middle of the year, Australia will see the most significant reform to the corporate and personal insolvency environment in two decades. The reforms, which appear likely to be supported by all sides of government, are designed to promote business preservation and allow greater flexibility in order to ‘turnaround’ distressed companies.

This article forms part of our litigation funding series and discusses a key decision that has the potential to significantly support the due diligence efforts of litigation funders in external administration contexts.

In the course of antecedent transaction proceedings, particularly for unfair preferences, arguably the most contentious and critical question to be determined is the date of insolvency. Although that question predominantly involves an accounting exercise, it also includes an assessment of the commercial, financial and trading realities of the relevant company and a consideration of legal principles.

In late September 2020, the federal government announced that it would be introducing changes to Australia's Corporations Act (Act) and the most significant amendments to the corporate insolvency regimes in decades. The main objective is to help the small business sector deal with and overcome the economic, financial and trading challenges posed by the ongoing pandemic. Since then, the government has released its new laws via the Corporations Amendment (Corporation Insolvency Reforms) Bill 2020 (Cth) (New Laws).