It’s been an interesting couple of weeks for bankruptcy at the United States Supreme Court with two bankruptcy-related decisions released in back-to-back weeks. Last week, the Supreme Court issued an important decision delineating the scope of section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code (discussed here [1] for those who missed it).
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?
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).
Despite the initial glee of the prospect of a United States that was independent of Middle East oil, beginning in the fourth quarter of 2014, the price of oil started dropping precipitously. As noted in a recent article, over 80 bankruptcies in the oil industry were filed in 2015, up 471 % over calendar year 2014.
The High Court of Australia in CGU Insurance Ltd v Blakeley & Ors [2016] HCA 2 unanimously confirmed that a third party can join a defendant’s insurer to a proceeding and seek a declaration of rights under the insurance agreement, provided that third party has a ‘real interest’ in the performance of the agreement and that there is practical utility in the court providing that declaration.
The unanimous decision by the Full Court of the Federal Court in Templeton v Australian and Securities Investments Commission [2015] FCAFC 137 confirms that the concept of proportionality is a well-recognised factor in considering the question of reasonable remuneration for an insolvency practitioner, and that, in assessing a remuneration claim, the Court can take into account the quality and complexity of the work as well as the value and nature of any property dealt with and the time reasonably spent.
Anyone investing equity in an enterprise, whether creating a start-up or purchasing an established company, is a natural optimist. The hope is that the business will continue to perform well and yield its owners substantial profits year-after-year (and then maybe a hefty return upon exit). But, as those of us in restructuring know, not every company enjoys positive returns all the time. Businesses go through down cycles for different reasons – whether it be the overall economic climate (think 2008), issues specific to a particular industry (think dropping oil prices), a gr
The American Bankruptcy Institute Commission to Study the Reform of Chapter 11 today released its long-awaited, much-anticipated Final Report and Recommendations.
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.