If ever there were times challenging enough for boards to be considering the financial lifeline that is safe harbour from insolvent trading, these are they.

On a daily basis we are reading news of businesses having to shut down and lay off employees and seeing footage of lengthy Centrelink queues. Boards are working harder than ever to govern their organisations in incredibly uncertain times.

As part of the its efforts to stem the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the Australian economy, the Federal Government has recently introduced a number of ‘safety net’ provisions designed to avoid financially distressed individuals and companies being forced into, respectively, bankruptcy and liquidation.

The objective is to allow them to continue trading where possible.

The reforms

In Mission Product Holdings Inc. v. Tempnology LLC, No. 17-1657, the Supreme Court has held that a debtor’s rejection of an executory contract does not abrogate the rights others enjoy under that contract. Although the Court’s ruling specifically dealt with rights to a trademark license, the reasoning appears broader than that. The Supreme Court has in effect done away with a debtor’s right to reject any lease, concession, license, or agreement and then prevent a counterparty from enjoying the use of the rights previously granted.

A recent Federal Court decision puts administrators on notice that they must carefully consider the consequences of dealing with other people’s assets.

The decision of Justice Perram in White, in the matter of Mossgreen Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) [2018] FCA 471, highlights the care that administrators must take when administering property outside the scope of their authority.

In Mossgreen, administrators were appointed to a company that conducted a business that ran an auction house and gallery.

On March 5, 2018, the Federal Maritime Commission voted to launch an investigation into the detention, demurrage, and per diem charges of vessel operating common carriers and marine terminal operators. The investigation will be headed by Commissioner Rebecca Dye, who will have broad authority to issue subpoenas, hold public and non-public inquiries, and require reports.

The key issues Commissioner Dye will investigate are:

The Victorian Court of Appeal decides that the Corporations Act priority regime does apply to trading trusts.

The law is now clear. Or is it?

For the last two years and six days, insolvency practitioners and other stakeholders involved in the liquidation of trading trusts have been frustrated by what should be a very straightforward question.

If the company in liquidation carries on business through a trust structure, as many do, what is the order of priorities that the liquidator must apply when making distributions to creditors?

SNDA Basics

A subordination, nondisturbance and attornment agreement (“SNDA”) is commonly used in real estate financing to clarify the rights and obligations between the owner of rental property (i.e., the borrower), the lender that provides financing secured by the property, and the tenant under a lease of the property in the event the lender forecloses or otherwise acquires title to the property. As suggested by its name, an SNDA has the following three primary components:

It is common practice for company contracts to contain clauses, known as “ipso facto” clauses, which terminate or amend the contract (e.g. by accelerating payments) merely because a company has entered into a formal insolvency process.

On 28 March 2017, the Federal Government released draft reform legislation to Australia’s insolvency laws to promote a culture of entrepreneurship and help reduce the stigma associated with business failure.

The reforms, known as ‘safe-harbour’ provisions propose changes to directors’ personal liability for insolvent trading under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act).

Background

The United States Supreme Court (the “Court”) recently issued a long-awaited decision in Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp. (“Jevic”), which limits the use of “structured dismissals” in Chapter 11 bankruptcy cases, requiring structured dismissals pursuant to which final distributions are made to comply with the Bankruptcy Code’s priority scheme, or the consent of all affected parties to be obtained.1

What is a Structured Dismissal?