On March 27, 2020, President Trump signed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act or the “CARES Act.”The legislation includes a historic $2 trillion aid package intended to stabilize the U.S. economy and provide disaster relief aid to American citizens and businesses impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. The emergency aid package, which is by far the largest in American history, contains many provisions focused on providing relief. Among these are certain temporary amendments to Title 11 of the United States Code (the “Bankruptcy Code”).

INTRODUCTION

In times of unprecedented market uncertainty, assessing financial exposure to your counterparties is essential. Volatility in the commodities markets and a public health crisis create the perfect storm for financial distress for companies in nearly every industry. Risk is inherent in business and that risk is heightened when you are dealing with a company in financial distress. Managing these risks begins with knowing your counterparties and understanding your legal position with respect to those counterparties.

Countries across the world are actively taking measures to stem the spread of COVID-19 by encouraging and, in some cases, forcing social distancing. One of the most common measures employed so far is the closing of non-essential stores, bars and restaurants for several weeks, if not longer. Several large retailers, such as JCPenney, Ross Stores, Kirkland’s Inc., Marshalls and TJ Maxx, have announced store closings for two weeks in efforts to help stop the spread of COVID-19.

This week’s TGIF takes a look at the recent case of Mills Oakley (a partnership) v Asset HQ Australia Pty Ltd [2019] VSC 98, where the Supreme Court of Victoria found the statutory presumption of insolvency did not arise as there had not been effective service of a statutory demand due to a typographical error in the postal address.

What happened?

This week’s TGIF examines a decision of the Victorian Supreme Court which found that several proofs had been wrongly admitted or rejected, and had correct decisions been made, the company would not have been put into liquidation.

BACKGROUND

This week’s TGIF considers Re Broens Pty Limited (in liq) [2018] NSWSC 1747, in which a liquidator was held to be justified in making distributions to creditors in spite of several claims by employees for long service leave entitlements.

What happened?

On 19 December 2016, voluntary administrators were appointed to Broens Pty Limited (the Company). The Company supplied machinery & services to manufacturers in aerospace, rail, defence and mining industries.

This week’s TGIF considers the recent case of Vanguard v Modena [2018] FCA 1461, where the Court ordered a non-party director to pay indemnity costs due to his conduct in opposing winding-up proceedings against his company.

Background

Vanguard served a statutory demand on Modena on 27 September 2017 seeking payment of outstanding “commitment fees” totalling $138,000 which Modena was obliged, but had failed, to repay.

The recent decision of the Court of Appeal of Western Australia, Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd v Forge Group Power Pty Ltd (in Liquidation) (Receivers and Managers Appointed) [2018] WASCA 163 provides much needed clarity around the law of set-off. The decision will no doubt help creditors sleep well at night, knowing that when contracting with counterparties that later become insolvent they will not lose their set-off rights for a lack of mutuality where the counterparty has granted security over its assets.

This week’s TGIF considers the decision in Mujkic Family Company Pty Ltd v Clarke & Gee Pty Ltd [2018] TASFC 4, which concerns a rather novel issue – whether a solicitor acting for a shareholder might also owe a duty of care to the company in liquidation.

What happened?

In 2015, the Supreme Court of Queensland ordered that the corporate trustee of a family trust be wound up.

This week’s TGIF considers the process that a liquidator may follow when a director fails to attend at an examination. It considers the appeal in Mensink v Parbery [2018] FCAFC 101, in which the Court set out the relevant differences between arrest warrants issued to require a director to attend an examination, and arrest warrants to answer charges for contempt.

What happened?