In 2023, we saw an increase in both voluntary administration and receivership appointments in Australia. In the context of Australia's economic climate this was unsurprising — debtor companies were grappling with volatile markets, supply chain disruptions and uncertain economic conditions, and secured lenders were invoking either or both of these regimes as a means of protecting their investments.

Investors in the Australian market are more sophisticated than ever and – unsurprisingly – so too are the restructuring transactions being promoted by these investors. One such transaction is the credit bid. While not a transaction structure that is formally recognised in Australia, a credit bid is a valuable tool in a financier's playbook that can be implemented to achieve a return where the original financing is unable to be repaid in accordance with its terms.

Credit Bidding

In today's globalised economy, local recognition of foreign insolvency proceedings can be essential for the successful implementation of cross-border restructurings. This is particularly relevant in Australia — a popular host for foreign investment and global corporate groups with local assets.

A creditors' scheme of arrangement ("Scheme") can be a powerful restructuring tool implemented to achieve a variety of outcomes for a business, ranging from deleveraging or a debt-to-equity conversion to a merger and/or issue of new debt/equity instruments. When managed appropriately, a Scheme can reshape a business' debt and equity profile, setting it up for an improved go-forward operating platform. Below we set out an outline of the Scheme process in Australia and consider some key features that are unique to Australian schemes.

The first of three compliance deadlines for US regulations requiring resolution-related amendments to qualified financial contracts is January 1, 2019, and delaying compliance until the subsequent deadlines creates additional risk. Compliance programs may not be able to eliminate this risk due to the scope of contracts to be remediated and the staggered compliance period that looks back to the first compliance date.

This article was published in a slightly different form in the November 2016 issue of Futures & Derivatives Law by The Journal on the Law of Investment & Risk Management Products.

Introduction

On September 15, 2009, the United States Bankruptcy Court of the Southern District of New York ordered Metavante Corporation (“Metavante”) to make payments to Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc. (“LBSF”) under a prepetition interest rate swap agreement guaranteed by Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (“LBHI” and, together with LBSF, “Lehman”) after Metavante had suspended ordinary course settlement payments under the swap.1 Metavante claimed a contractual right to withhold payment under Section 2(a)(iii) of the 1992 ISDA Master Agreement as a result of Lehman’s bankruptcy.

Recent changes in Peruvian insolvency laws1 will now allow financial institutions and insurance company counterparties to close-out and net obligations under derivatives and repurchase agreements with Peruvian financial institutions or insurance companies which become subject to bankruptcy proceedings.