The economic impacts of COVID-19 are unexpected and significant. While the Australian Government has announced a number of temporary reforms to address these impacts, there remains risk for directors of companies that are unable to pay their debts as and when they are due.
The Government has announced significant temporary measures to ensure that our insolvency laws and processes do not expose companies and individuals to undue risk. This will hopefully avoid a potentially unprecedented wave of insolvencies.
Key takeouts
The Government announced a six month suspension of insolvent trading laws.
The relevant debts will still be due and payable by the company in the normal way.
Executive Summary
In any bankruptcy, there are inevitably winners and losers. The winners do not always do virtuous acts to win and the losers are not necessarily evil. Rather, dividing up a limited pie, the bankruptcy courts must leave some creditors short-changed. A good example is the recent 7th Circuit case involving a supplier and a lender. (hhgregg, Inc. et al. (Debtor). Whirlpool Corporation v. Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, and GACP Finance Co., LLC, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 18-3363, February 11, 2020) |
The Treasury Laws Amendment (Combating Illegal Phoenixing) Bill 2019 was passed by both houses of Parliament on 5 February 2020, with an amendment made by the Senate to review the operation and effectiveness of the legislation after five years accepted by the House of Representatives.
There is no doubt Australia has done well in its response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Many companies and individuals have been able to obtain some economic relief through a range of Government policies and initiatives, and some generous concessions in relation to financing arrangements, which may have otherwise crippled some businesses.
Secured creditors filing a UCC financing statement under Article 9 must include a description of the collateral. (UCC 9-502) UCC Article 9 adopts a “notice filing” system, under which the purpose of the filing is to provide notice of a security interest in the specified collateral. UCC Article 9 does not require a precise (e.g., serial number) description. Even so, there has been much litigation over the sufficiency of the collateral descriptions in UCC financing statements.
In this technical update we discuss several points of principle from the recent High Court decision in Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts Australia Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth [2019] HCA 20 (Carter).
On 19 June 2019, the High Court delivered its much anticipated decision in Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts Australia Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth [2019] HCA 20.
On May 20, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in Mission Products Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC nka Old Cold LLC, (Case No. 17-1657, U.S. Supreme Court, May 20, 2019) ("Tempnology"). The U.S. Supreme Court decided that a trademark licensee can continue to use a trademark license even when a bankrupt trademark licensor rejects the license agreement.
The Western Australian Court of Appeal has ruled that giving security to a Bank does not destroy mutuality for the purposes of statutory set-off if the security allows the debtor to use assets to pay its debts in the ordinary course of business.