We are excited to share the inaugural edition of R+I In Brief, where we explore the past year of developments in the Australian restructuring and insolvency industry and provide our thoughts on the year ahead.

The 2023 edition of R+I In Brief includes a collection of articles and case notes we have prepared as well as some further commentary on issues we consider pertinent to the restructuring and insolvency industry.

It is broken up into three parts:

In this Part of the 2023 edition of R+I In Brief, we delve into significant judicial developments relating to insolvency law, including:

Part 1 of the 2023 edition of R+I In Brief explores restructuring and insolvency developments in Australia in FY22/23.

Overview

Despite the challenges flowing from increasing global inflation and supply chain disruptions, the Australian economy has to date remained resilient and a technical recession has been avoided in 2023. However, after many years of historically low interest rates, the Reserve Bank of Australia raised interest rates rapidly from April 2022 (12 rate rises and counting) as inflation became uncontrollable.

This Part of the 2023 edition of R+I In Brief provides key industry and sector insights relating to the restructuring space over the past year. These hot topics include:

Introduction

In a previous article, 'In case of emergency: Using emergency power provisions to appoint a voluntary administrator' we discussed the use of emergency powers in a company’s constitution to appoint a voluntary administrator to a company, as well as the use of court assistance to cure defects in an appointment.

Corporate Australia is bracing for the long-awaited surge in insolvencies. As Australia’s largest creditor and, according to creditor reporting bureau Creditor Watch, responsible for the greatest number of company windups prior to the pandemic in 2019, the ATO can fairly be described as an influential, if not dominant, player in the restructuring and turnaround space and in corporate Australia more broadly.

The ATO effect

“[C]ourts may account for hypothetical preference actions within a hypothetical [C]hapter 7 liquidation” to hold a defendant bank (“Bank”) liable for a payment it received within 90 days of a debtor’s bankruptcy, held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on March 7, 2017.In re Tenderloin Health, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 4008, *4 (9th Cir. March 7, 2017).

The Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (“Bankruptcy Rules”) require each corporate party in an adversary proceeding (i.e., a bankruptcy court suit) to file a statement identifying the holders of “10% or more” of the party’s equity interests. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7007.1(a). Bankruptcy Judge Martin Glenn, relying on another local Bankruptcy Rule (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. R.

A Chapter 11 debtor “cannot nullify a preexisting obligation in a loan agreement to pay post-default interest solely by proposing a cure,” held a split panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Nov. 4, 2016. In re New Investments Inc., 2016 WL 6543520, *3 (9th Cir. Nov. 4, 2016) (2-1).