In our previous bulletin we discussed the ‘safe harbour’ model in the Government’s suggested reforms to the current insolvency laws.

This bulletin considers another of the focus questions in the Proposal Paper: the voiding of ipso facto clauses relating to insolvency events.

Background

On 29 April 2016, the Federal Government released a Proposals Paper titled ‘Improving bankruptcy and insolvency laws’.

The Government is proposing these reforms to encourage entrepreneurship and investment. It hopes to reduce the stigma and detriment around failed business ventures, while still balancing the need to protect creditors.

Background

Creditors of an insolvent entity file their claims against the entity with the insolvency administrator (Germany) or insolvency court (Austria). If a claim is accepted, it is registered in the insolvency table as an accepted claim and the creditor is listed as an insolvency creditor in the insolvency proceedings.

By order of the Commercial Court of Vienna from 30.11.2015, bankruptcy proceedings were opened against the assets of the food chain Zielpunkt GmbH. With liabilities amounting to approximately 237 million euros, the Zielpunkt insolvency is the biggest of 2015. Zielpunkt has 229 branches in total in Austria and employs 2708 employees. The insolvency administrator is trying to sell as many branches as possible. The acquisition of Zielpunkt branches by competitors, as by the two biggest grocers REWE and Spar, however, raises competition law concerns due to the large market share.

Where a court has ordered the winding-up of a company, a shareholder may be able to have the winding up terminated under section 482 of the Corporations Act 2001.

Relevant factors

The power of the court to terminate a winding-up is discretionary. Relevant factors to be considered, which are not exhaustive, include the following:

As can be read in the media, reorganization proceedings were opened on the assets of the Kärntner Landes- und Hypothekenbank-Holding.

The reason for the application for initiation of reorganization proceedings is the liability by virtue of law of the applicant for all current and future liabilities of the bad bank HETA Asset Resolution AG, universal successor of Hypo Alpe-Adria-Bank International AG. 

If a director can exercise a right of set-off against a company in liquidation for a debt owed to the director or for a liability of the company to the director (which may be unascertained in amount or contingent), it may help to cancel out or significantly reduce the director’s liability to the company for insolvent trading.

In Allco Funds Management Limited v Trust Co (Re Services) Ltd [2014] NSWSC 1251, an inter-company loan transaction was challenged by a receiver appointed by the secured creditor to one of the companies. Common directors were involved in the transaction. The issue was whether the directors breached their fiduciary duties entitling the company via the receiver to have the transaction set aside.

The background to the case

A debtor company can seek to have a statutory demand set aside if there is a genuine dispute as to the existence or amount of the debt, or the company has an offsetting claim.

Because the threshold for contesting a statutory demand is relatively low, a creditor may decide it is better to issue the statutory demand for the undisputed portion of the total debt after making an appropriate allowance for the amount of the total debt in dispute or the amount of the alleged offsetting claim.

When a company is facing short term financial difficulties the directors or shareholders may decide to make a loan to the company to pay wages.