The Patent Office's decision in McCann as Liquidator of ACN 137 233 919 v Molnar [2017] APO 30 explores interesting territory for liquidators and insolvency professionals – the intersection of insolvency and intellectual property.

On 2 October 2015, a company which had gone into liquidation, Sax, filed a request to amend the ownership of a patent application from itself to its sole director, Ms Molnar, pursuant to a sale agreement by which Sax had sold all of its intellectual property to Ms Molnar for $55,000. The Patent Office recorded the amendment on 16 October 2015.

Some of the most far-reaching Australian insolvency law changes are taking effect. These new laws will restrict the enforceability of a whole class of common clauses in contracts –so called 'ipso facto' clauses.

In this edition of FINSights, we explore what these changes mean for financiers, and outline key tips and issues they should consider as we move forward into the new regime.

What are ipso facto clauses?

Introduction

In late 2015, the High Court handed down its decision in Commissioner of Taxation v Australian Building Systems Pty Ltd (in liq) [2015] HCA 48. The High Court held (by a majority of 3:2) that, in the absence of an assessment, a liquidator is not required to retain funds from asset sale proceeds in order to meet a tax liability which could become payable as a result of a capital gain made on the sale. In doing so, the majority of the High Court affirmed the decision of the Full Federal Court and provided long awaited guidance to liquidators, receivers and administrators.

On 28 March 2017, the Australian Government announced its proposals to reform the law relating to insolvent trading, and the right to terminate contracts based on insolvency ('ipso facto clauses'). MinterEllison made a detailed submission on the proposals which can be found here.

In a noteworthy decision, the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit overturned a dismissal of a bankruptcy case, which the lower court had dismissed based on its belief that the landlord debtor was receiving rental income from a marijuana dispensary. The decision is significant because it holds that a bankruptcy cannot be dismissed simply because of the mere presence of a marijuana business or related proceeds in the case.

Is your guaranty restricted or continuing? A continuing guaranty gives rise to divisible individual transactions, while a restricted guaranty—one that concerns a contemplated and specified extension of credit—arises upon execution of the guaranty. In bankruptcy, as in life, timing is everything. A debtor’s liability under a prepetition guaranty agreement for a post-petition advance of credit may depend on the distinction between restricted and continuing, and the distinction may be subtle.

Sixth Circuit Determines that an Absolute Assignment of Rents Perfected Under Michigan State Law Takes Property out of a Bankruptcy Estate (In Re Town Center Flats, LLC, Case No. 16-1812 — Decided May 2, 2017)

On 31 January 2017, the Supreme Court of New South Wales handed down judgment in In the matter of OneSteel Manufacturing Pty Limited (administrators appointed). This important decision highlights the severe consequences that may follow from seemingly innocuous mistakes made when registering security interests.

On March 30, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals filed an opinion regarding whether the filing of a mechanic’s lien after the commencement of a bankruptcy case violates the automatic stay. Given the frequent involvement of many companies in Delaware bankruptcy cases, you should be aware of the Third Circuit’s ruling.