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).

Good news: structured dismissals have survived Supreme Court scrutiny. Bad news: dismissals may be harder to structure, given yesterday’s 6-2 decision overruling the Third Circuit in Jevic narrowing the context in which they can be approved. We now have guidance on whether or not structured dismissals must follow the Bankruptcy Code’s priority scheme. The short answer is that they must.

Introduction

Released in April 2016 the Turnbull Government proposed significant reforms to Australia’s insolvency laws, as part of its National Innovation Science Agenda - designed to strike a balance between encouraging entrepreneurship and protecting creditors, and to reduce the stigma associated with business failure.

Today, by a majority of 3-2, the High Court of Australia in Commissioner of Taxation v Australian Building Systems Pty Ltd (in liq) [2015] HCA 48 confirmed that s 254(1)(d) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth) (ITAA 1936) does not impose an obligation on trustees (including administrators, receivers and liquidators) to retain sufficient moneys from the trust fund to pay tax unless a relevant assessment has been issued.

“Aside from their inconsistency with empirical data, proposals to “reform” the Bankruptcy Code must overcome a more basic reality: The current Code works exceedingly well.”
– LSTA Response

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.

One of the primary business restructuring goals is the adjustment of a company’s burdensome obligations.  If a business is going to be reorganized, matching a company’s obligations to its value is key to the rehabilitation and “fresh start” concepts that underpin the Bankruptcy Code.

On May 4, Judge Vincent Bricetti of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a ruling in the Momentive Performance Materials cases affirming the bankruptcy court’s confirmation rulings.  Key themes raised in this case of interest to distressed investors and addressed in Judge Bricetti’s ruling include