The U.S. Supreme Court recently scrutinized the proper application of the safe harbor found in Section 546(e) of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code1 in Merit Management Group, LP v. FTI Consulting Inc.2 While the Supreme Court's decision narrowed the reach of the safe harbor, it did little to change the landscape for the multi-billion dollar U.S. structured finance industry, including warehouse lending.
On February 27, 2018, the United States Supreme Court in a significant ruling held in Merit Management Group, LP v. FTI Consulting, Inc. that transfers of property of a debtor in which financial institutions are mere conduits or intermediaries may be avoidable. The Court ruled that the safe harbor provisions of section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code do not protect such transfers from avoidance.
1. Section 90K(1)(aa) of theFamily Law Act1975 (Cth) provides that a court may set aside a financial agreement if the court is satisfied that a party to the agreement entered into the agreement for purposes including the purpose of defrauding or defeating creditors, or with reckless disregard to the interests of the creditors.
In certain circumstances, liquidators may be at risk of personal exposure to costs orders in litigation.
The court’s approach to the making of costs orders against liquidators depends on (amongst other things) whether the liquidator is a named party to the proceedings, whether the liquidator is commencing or defending proceedings, and whether the liquidator has acted ‘improperly’ or unreasonably in the commencement, maintenance or defence of the action.
Proceedings commenced by the liquidator / company in liquidation
On 19 October 2017, the Bankruptcy Amendment (Enterprise Incentives) Bill 2017 was introduced into Parliament by the Commonwealth Government in order to reduce the default period of bankruptcy from three years down to just one year. The stated objective of the Bill is “to foster entrepreneurial behaviour and reduce the stigma associated with bankruptcy whilst maintaining the integrity of the regulatory and enforcement frameworks for the personal insolvency regime.”
The Bankruptcy Code prohibits a chapter 13 debtor from modifying a mortgage lien on the debtor's principal residence. Even in situations in which a secured creditor fails to file a proof of claim or otherwise participate in the bankruptcy proceeding, the Bankruptcy Code allows a secured creditor's lien on a primary residence to pass through the bankruptcy unaffected. However, a recent decision from a bankruptcy court in Texas illustrates the risks to secured creditors of blind reliance on these statutory protections.
We are now past the second tranche of changes under the Insolvency Law Reform Act 2016 (Cth), comprised most importantly of Part 3 of the Insolvency Practice Schedule (IPS) (containing the General Rules relating to external administrations) which came into effect on 1 September 2017.
Part 3 of the IPS will apply to external administrations that start on or after 1 September 2017.
- On 18 September 2017 the Treasury Law Amendment (2017 Enterprise Incentives No. 2) Act 2017 (the Safe Harbour and Ipso Facto Act) became law.
- The Safe Harbour reforms introduced in the Safe Harbour and Ipso Facto Act create a safe harbour for company directors from personal liability for insolvent trading if the company is undertaking a restructure outside formal insolvency processes.
Division 65 and the New Strict Liability Regime
As part of the significant reforms to insolvency and bankruptcy laws introduced by the Insolvency Law Reform Act 2016 (ILRA), parliament has sought to condense and simplify the requirement for external administrators to avoid conflicts of interest.