Part 1 of this two-part series explored potential legislative changes which could impact the Australian insolvency landscape in 2022 and beyond. Part 2 addresses the recent major developments in case law that have the potential to shape the insolvency landscape in Australia for many years to come.

Unitranche financing began as a middle-market product, tracing its origins to the days of recovery from the global credit crisis. The credit markets re-opened with an explosion of available capital from traditional lenders, business development companies and other direct lenders. With an increasing supply of capital, leverage shifted to borrowers and private equity, allowing them to better dictate the terms and conditions of their loan facilities. With the greater prevalence of so-called “covenant-lite” loans, also came the exponential growth of the unitranche market.

Financial support for businesses impacted by COVID-19, legislative provisions (such as the statutory relaxation to insolvent trading liability) and general creditor leniency have resulted inhistorically low insolvency appointments during the last two years.

The High Court has handed down the long-awaited decision of Stubbings v Jams 2 Pty Ltd [2022] HCA 6, unanimously overturning the decision of the Victorian Court of Appeal. In so doing, the Court held that enforcement of rights under a personal guarantee was unconscionable.

In Walton v ACN 004 410 833 Limited (formerly Arrium Limited) (in liquidation) [2022] HCA 3, the High Court extended the purpose for which, and incidentally parties by whom, public examinations may be used.

The merchant cash advance (“MCA”) industry recently provided two different bankruptcy courts with an opportunity to consider the characterization of MCA funding transactions as either “true sales” of receivables or “disguised loans”.

For some time, controversy has surrounded the question as to whether unsecured creditors of an insolvent company can utilise set-off under s 553C of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act) against unfair preference claims.

Public examinations are a powerful process for a liquidator to explore the reasons for a company’s failure, identify any claims the liquidator or the company might have and assess recoverability prospects following any successful claim.

In a similar vein, liquidators might also obtain document production orders against natural persons and corporate entities. Such document production orders are often obtained in advance of examinations, and can assist the liquidator in its investigations and preparation for the examinations.

Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code, adopted in all fifty states plus the District of Columbia with relatively few variations, sets out, among other things, the rules to be followed when obtaining a security interest in personal property collateral to secure a loan. The basic premise of Article 9 is that if the lender follows the rules, it should be protected against third parties, including other creditors or a bankruptcy trustee, who would seek to challenge the lender’s security interest or the priority of the security interest.

In its much-discussed decision, City of Chicago v. Fulton, 141 S. Ct. 585 (2020), the Supreme Court ruled that the City of Chicago (“City”) was not in violation of Section 362(a)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code for failing to release an impounded car to a debtor in bankruptcy.