The Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) (the Act) provides a regime by which a debtor can compromise with his/her creditors outside formal bankruptcy. The provisions are found in Part X (Personal Insolvency Agreements) and Part IX (Debt Agreements) of the Act.

DEBT AGREEMENTS

The High Court has recently clarified what is required for the creation of an express trust (Korda & Ors v Australian Executor Trustees (SA) Ltd [2015] HCA 6 (Korda)).

To be effective, express trusts must satisfy the three certainties of intention, subject matter and object. That is:

CLARITY OF INTENTION KEY TO CREATION OF EXPRESS TRUSTS: A WIN FOR RECEIVERS 

The High Court has recently clarified what is required for the creation of an express trust (Korda & Ors v Australian Executor Trustees (SA) Ltd [2015] HCA 6 (Korda)).

To be effective, express trusts must satisfy the three certainties of intention, subject matter and object. That is:

SUMMARY

The Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia have confirmed that a judgment on assessed costs is a final orders for the purposes of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) (Act), and therefore that a costs order can ground a bankruptcy notice for the purposes of the Act.

THE PERILS OF AMBIGUITY IN BANKRUPTCY NOTICES

The Bankruptcy Act ('the Act') is prescriptive as to the form and content of bankruptcy notices. Courts have often observed that close observance of the rules is necessary in light of the serious consequences faced by debtors upon bankruptcy and failure to do so may result in the notices being rendered invalid.

ABILITY TO SEEK AN EXTENSION OF TIME

Section 588FF(3) of the Corporations Act 2001 (the Act) provides liquidators with a mechanism by which to obtain an extension of time within which proceedings against the recipients of voidable transactions may be commenced.

On 30 October 2014, the English High Court sanctioned the second scheme of arrangement for the APCOA group (the “Scheme”). APCOA has been one of the hottest names in the restructuring market in 2014. First, it broke new ground in relation to an “amend and extend” scheme in early 2014 when it established sufficient connection to England off the back of a change in governing law. Second, the Scheme was aggressively opposed and its sanction by the High Court was appealed to the Court of Appeal (although ultimately the appeal was withdrawn).

One of the recent hot topics in the European restructuring market has been whether the UK Courts would sanction a scheme of arrangement in relation to a foreign company, with no previous connection to the UK whatsoever, where the sole basis for establishing jurisdiction to undertake the scheme would be amending the governing law and jurisdiction clauses of the company’s principal finance documents to English law.