An appeal “of considerable importance for company law” in the UK could affect Australian directors' duties.

In Australia, the existence of a duty to consider the interests of creditors principally arises in the context of the fiduciary duty of directors to act in the best interests of the company. That duty finds expression in section 181(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth): a director or other officer of a corporation must exercise their powers and discharge their duties in good faith in the best interests of the corporation and for a proper purpose.

Liquidators accepting a new appointment will have to think carefully if there's a possibility of disclaiming onerous property as part of that appointment.

In Kennedy Civil Contracting Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) v Richard Crookes Constructing Pty Ltd v Richard Crookes Construction Pty Ltd; In the matter of Kennedy Civil Contracting Pty Ltd [2023] NSWSC 99, the NSW Supreme Court considered whether a company on the brink of liquidation can take action to enforce a payment claim under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW) (SOP Act).

Insolvency practitioners and creditors facing voidable transaction claims will need to reassess the value of any potential or threatened unfair preference claims or other voidable transaction claims, following two important insolvency decisions in the High Court yesterday (Metal Manufactures Pty Limited v Morton [2023] HCA 1 (Metal Manufactures); Bryant v Badenoch Integrated Logging Pty Ltd [2023] HCA 2 (Badenoch).

It held that:

The first reported decision on the ipso facto stay provisions of the Corporations Act provides clarity that they operate as intended in voluntary administration – leaving the trickier issues for another day.

More Australian businesses in financial difficulty are embracing a ‘turnaround’ culture, but further structural reforms are needed to shift attitudes towards the use of turnaround professionals, according to Clayton Utz Restructuring & Insolvency partner, Cameron Belyea.

A bankruptcy court’s recent denial of a debtor’s petition for bankruptcy relief on narrow grounds casts a long shadow on the viability of bankruptcy relief for those employed in the cannabis industry. Though confining the court’s holding to this debtor’s case, the court concluded that because the debtor engaged, and intended to continue engaging, in activities that violate the Federal Controlled Substances Act, the debtor could not objectively have filed for bankruptcy or proposed a plan of reorganization in good faith, as required by Federal bankruptcy law.

The latest amendments to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (the “Bankruptcy Rules”) took effect on December 1, 2022. This collection of modifications may be broadly divided into two categories: (i) amendments and a new rule promulgated to account for the Small Business Reorganization Act of 2019 (the “SBRA”), and (ii) amendments clarifying or consolidating non-SBRA specific Bankruptcy Rules.

SBRA-Related Amendments

Could bankruptcy protection be on the horizon for individuals and companies actively involved in the cannabis industry? Potentially yes, following President Biden’s October 6, 2022 request for the Secretary of Health and Human Services to begin the administrative process to review marijuana’s classification as a Schedule I substance under the Controlled Substance Act (“CSA”).

A comprehensive review has begun into the effectiveness of Australia’s corporate insolvency laws in protecting and maximising value for the benefit of all interested parties and the economy. Undertaken by the Federal Government’s Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, the review is seeking submissions by 30 November 2022.