The Federal Court of Australia has recently exercised its powers to:

The economic impacts of COVID-19 are unexpected and significant. While the Australian Government has announced a number of temporary reforms to address these impacts, there remains risk for directors of companies that are unable to pay their debts as and when they are due. 

The Government has announced significant temporary measures to ensure that our insolvency laws and processes do not expose companies and individuals to undue risk. This will hopefully avoid a potentially unprecedented wave of insolvencies. 

Key takeouts

The Government announced a six month suspension of insolvent trading laws.

The relevant debts will still be due and payable by the company in the normal way. 

The Treasury Laws Amendment (Combating Illegal Phoenixing) Bill 2019 was passed by both houses of Parliament on 5 February 2020, with an amendment made by the Senate to review the operation and effectiveness of the legislation after five years accepted by the House of Representatives.

There is no doubt Australia has done well in its response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Many companies and individuals have been able to obtain some economic relief through a range of Government policies and initiatives, and some generous concessions in relation to financing arrangements, which may have otherwise crippled some businesses.

In this technical update we discuss several points of principle from the recent High Court decision in Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts Australia Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth [2019] HCA 20 (Carter).

On 19 June 2019, the High Court delivered its much anticipated decision in Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts Australia Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth [2019] HCA 20.

In February, following oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court in Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, we wrote about the hugely important trademark law issue presented by this case, namely: If a bankrupt trademark licensor “rejects” an executory trademark license agreement, does that bankruptcy action terminate the licensee’s right to continue using the licensed trademark for the remaining term of the agreement?

Oral argument before the Supreme Court was held on February 20 in the much-watched and even more intensely discussed trademark dispute Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC. The case presents the difficult and multifaceted question: Does bankruptcy law insulate the right of a trademark licensee to continue using the licensed mark despite the bankrupt trademark licensor’s decision to “reject” the remaining term of the trademark license?

The Western Australian Court of Appeal has ruled that giving security to a Bank does not destroy mutuality for the purposes of statutory set-off if the security allows the debtor to use assets to pay its debts in the ordinary course of business.