In the course of antecedent transaction proceedings, particularly for unfair preferences, arguably the most contentious and critical question to be determined is the date of insolvency. Although that question predominantly involves an accounting exercise, it also includes an assessment of the commercial, financial and trading realities of the relevant company and a consideration of legal principles.

In late September 2020, the federal government announced that it would be introducing changes to Australia's Corporations Act (Act) and the most significant amendments to the corporate insolvency regimes in decades. The main objective is to help the small business sector deal with and overcome the economic, financial and trading challenges posed by the ongoing pandemic. Since then, the government has released its new laws via the Corporations Amendment (Corporation Insolvency Reforms) Bill 2020 (Cth) (New Laws).

The Australian federal government has continued introducing temporary and potentially permanent insolvency law reforms intended to assist the economic repair efforts during, and following, the pandemic. In the latest development, which occurred in somewhat strange circumstances, the federal government has announced that it will shortly introduce new laws into parliament, which are intended to reduce complexity, time and the costs for small businesses to restructure their financial affairs.

The Australian federal government has announced that the temporary changes it enacted in March to the Corporations Act (Cth) (Act) concerning insolvent trading laws and the creditor’s statutory demand regime (Insolvency laws) have been extended to 31 December 2020. The changes were due to expire on 25 September. 

Economic Fallout Continues

Since late March 2020 there has been a steady stream of voluntary administrators seeking the assistance of the court to limit their personal liabilities under the Corporations Act (Cth) 2001 (Act) by pointing to the social and economic disruptions and restrictions caused by COVID-19.

The bankruptcy trustee of a bank holding company was not entitled to a consolidated corporate tax refund when a bank subsidiary had incurred losses generating the refund, held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit on May 26, 2020. Rodriguez v. FDIC (In re United Western Bancorp, Inc.), 2020 WL 2702425(10th Cir May 26, 2020). On remand from the U.S. Supreme Court, the Tenth Circuit, as directed, applied “Colorado law to resolve” the question of “who owns the federal tax refund.” Id., at *2.

The Australian Government has taken swift action to enact new legislation which significantly changes the insolvency laws relevant to all business as a result of the ongoing COVID-19 related developments.

Snapshot

A bankruptcy court’s preliminary injunction was “not a final and immediately appealable order,” held the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware on Dec. 10, 2019. In re Alcor Energy, LLC, 2019 WL 6716420, 4 (D. Del. Dec. 10, 2019). The court declined to “exercise [its] discretion” under 28 U.S.C. §158(a)(3) to hear the interlocutory appeal. Id., citing 16 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, §3926.1 (3d ed. 2017) (“There is no provision for appeal as of right from an injunction order of a bankruptcy judge to the district court.”).

A creditor’s “later-in-time reclamation demand is ‘subject to’ [a lender’s] prior rights as a secured creditor,” held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on Feb. 11, 2020. In re HHGregg, Inc., 2020 WL 628268 (7th Cir. Feb. 11, 2020). And “[w]hen a lender insists on collateral, it expects the collateral to be worth something,” said the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on Feb. 11, 2020, when rejecting a guarantor’s “novel reading” of his security agreement. In re Somerset Regional Water Resources, LLC, 2020 WL 628542 (3d Cir. Feb. 11, 2020).

Lender repossesses the equipment of its business borrower after it defaults on its secured loan agreement. Because borrower needs the equipment to run its business, it then files a Chapter 11 petition and promptly asks lender to return the equipment. Lender refuses because the equipment secures the defaulted loan. Depending on where the debtor sought bankruptcy relief (e.g., New York or New Jersey), lender may be subject to sanctions for holding on to the equipment.