In Germany, securitization SPVs, factoring companies and asset based lenders take security over the leased assets owned by the leasing company by way of a security transfer of title. However, in all cases of a leasing company’s insolvency where the leasing company has still possession of the assets, the owner of the security in the leased assets was in the past not seen as being entitled to realise the value of the assets itself.

The Queensland Court of Appeal has unanimously allowed an appeal by the liquidators of Linc Energy Limited (Linc Energy), holding it was possible to use a disclaimer notice to avoid the consequences of an environmental protection order (EPO) issued under the Environmental Protection Act 1994 (Qld) (EPA).

Introduction – why does this matter?

Under German law, there are strict legal obligations for the managing directors of an insolvent company to file for insolvency. Failure to comply exposes a managing director to civil and criminal liability. It is therefore important for managing directors to know how to test whether their company is insolvent. One of the legal reasons for insolvency is illiquidity and the second senate of the German Federal Civil Court (“BGH”) has, in a decision dated 19 December 2017 (II ZR 88/16), clarified a question regarding the illiquidity test.

A recent ruling of the German Federal Civil Court (Bundesgerichtshof (“BGH”)) is a reminder of the risks which shareholders of a German company can face in an insolvency of their German subsidiary.

Since the landmark decision in Re Solfire Pty Ltd (In Liq) (No. 2) [1999] 2 Qd R 182, the Queensland Supreme Court has often marched to its own tune when reviewing applications for insolvency practitioner remuneration and disbursements. In two related decisions arising from the insolvency of LM Investment Management and managed investment schemes of which it is responsible entity, the Court has now turned its attention to the controversies in this area over proportionality and access to trust assets with which its counterparts in New South Wales have grappled over the last 18 months.

In a series of recent decisions1, the Federal Court of Australia has held that section 588FL of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act) operates such that any new security granted by a company in external administration2. that could only be perfected by registration on the Personal Property Securities Register (PPSR), and which is not the subject of an effective registration made before the appointment of the external administrator, will be ineffective3.

German insolvency laws are very strict. The management of an insolvent company is under strict obligations to file for insolvency, and failure to comply with such obligation may result in civil and criminal liability. Other stakeholders, like financing banks or suppliers, who are dealing with a distressed company, require documentation that their contract partner can be restructured, in order to avoid potential liability and claw back risk in case of a future insolvency.

Yesterday in Canberra, a significant step forward for Australian insolvency law reform was taken: Parliament passed the much anticipated "safe harbor" for directors in relation to insolvent trading liability and moratorium on reliance by solvent counterparties on “ipso facto” clauses in voluntary administration and creditors schemes of arrangement.

Key Points

On the key points:

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 “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: