The Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Enterprise Incentives No. 2) Act 2017 (Cth), which introduces a safe harbour for directors of insolvent companies and a stay on the operation of ‘ipso facto’ clauses during and after certain formal insolvency processes, received Royal Assent on 18 September 2017.

Director safe harbour

The Senate Economics Legislation Committee has released a report (Report) regarding its inquiry into the provisions of the Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Enterprise Incentives No. 2) Bill 2017 (Bill) which amends:

On June 22, Sears Canada Inc. ("Sears Canada") and certain affiliates1 (collectively, the "Sears Canada Group") sought and obtained insolvency protection under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) (the "Court"), which in turn appointed FTI Consulting Canada Inc. (FTI or the "Monitor") as monitor.

The Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Enterprise Incentives No 2) Bill 2017 was passed by the House of Representatives on 22 June 2017 and has had a second reading moved in the Senate. 

The Bill:

Following consultation on exposure draft legislation between 28 March 2017 and 24 April 2017, the Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Enterprise Incentives No.2) Bill 2017 (Cth) (Bill) was introduced into the House of Representatives and received its second reading speech on 1 June 2017.

The Bill proposes to:

On 28 March 2017 the Federal Government released for public consultation draft legislation (Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Enterprise Incentives No. 2) Bill 2017 – Exposure Draft) that seeks to amend the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act) by introducing:

As part of the National Innovation and Science Agenda, Treasury has released an Exposure Draft Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Enterprise Incentives No.2) Bill 2017 which seeks to amend the Corporations Act 2001 (Corporations Act) to implement 2 key changes which are designed to promote a culture of entrepreneurship and

This case provides some useful guidance on some key aspects of oppression claims, and also illustrates that courts will be reluctant to wind up solvent companies, even where the parties are in deadlock and oppression has been established, in this case preferring to make buy out orders at a price to be determined.

For many litigants, the decision whether to prosecute or defend a lawsuit vigorously boils down to a rather basic calculus: What are my chances of success? What is the potential recovery or loss? Is this a "bet the company" litigation? And, how much will I have to pay the lawyers? In many respects, it is not all that different from a poker player eyeing his chip stack and deciding whether the pot odds and implied odds warrant the call of a big bet.

For many litigants, the decision whether to prosecute or defend a lawsuit vigorously boils down to a rather basic calculus: What are my chances of success? What is the potential recovery or loss? Is this a “bet the company” litigation? And, how much will I have to pay the lawyers? In many respects, it is not all that different from a poker player eyeing his chip stack and deciding whether the pot odds and implied odds warrant the call of a big bet.