On 14 May 2015, Australia acceded to the Convention on International Interests in Mobile Equipment (“Cape Town Convention”) and the Protocol to the Cape Town Convention (“Cape Town Protocol”). In particular, for insolvency related proceedings, Australia adopted what is known as “Alternative A” in aviation industry speak. The Cape Town Convention became effective as Australian law on 1 September 2015 and applies to the relevant aviation leasing and financing transitions entered into after that date.

In the event of a contractual counterparty going into liquidation, whether or not a trade counterparty may claim set-off against debts owed to the insolvent counterparty can dramatically affect the commercial position of the account debtor. This was recently highlighted in the decision of Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd v Forge Group Power Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) (Receivers and Managers appointed) [2017] WASC (2 June 2017).

What does this mean for you?

The Federal Court affirms that a secured creditor may be subrogated to the entitlements of priority creditors, to the extent that the Receivers’ payments to priority creditors have diminished its security.

As part of its economic response to the COVID-19 pandemic, yesterday the Government passed a ‘temporary safe harbour’ insolvency measure^[1].

On 28 March 2017, the Turnbull Government released draft legislation which would implement wide-ranging reforms to Australia’s corporate restructuring laws. The draft legislation focuses on reforms to the insolvent trading prohibition (Safe Harbour) and introducing a new stay on enforcing “ipso facto” clauses during certain restructuring procedures (Ipso Facto).

In a decision handed down earlier today, in Willmott Growers Group Inc v Willmott Forests Limited (Receivers and Managers appointed) (in liquidation) [2013] HCA 51,  the majority of the High Court upheld the Victorian Court of Appeal’s conclusion that the liquidators of an insolvent landlord can disclaim a lease, thereby extinguishing the tenant’s leasehold interest.

The perception of Australia as being a relatively “risky” place to sit on a Board has generally focused on the insolvent trading prohibition in section 588G of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and how it interacts with general directors’ duties.^[1]

The High Court this afternoon unanimously dismissed Clive Palmer and Ian Ferguson's challenge to the constitutional validity of section 596A of the Corporations Act.

This means that a liquidator's power to publicly examine and compel the production of documents remains intact and removes any doubt about the powers of liquidators under section 596A of the Corporations Act.

Arguments made by Clive Palmer and Ian Ferguson

Summary

For some time now, there has been uncertainty in Australian insolvency law about whether or not insolvency practitioners should apply the statutory priority regimes established by sections 433, 566 and 561 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) when distributing the assets of a “trading trust”. The decision of the New South Wales Supreme Court in Re Independent Contractor Services (Aust) Pty Ltd (In liq) [No 2] (2016) 305 FLR 222, and the myriad of cases that followed it, suggested that the answer was “no”.