When a company becomes financially distressed, directors are often required to act quickly and decisively. However, directors may at the same time find themselves held back by the requirements of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the “Corporations Act”) or their company constitution.

In Bartenwerfer v. Buckley, the Supreme Court of the United States resolved confusion in the lower courts over the scope and application of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A), which prohibits debtors from discharging debt through bankruptcy when such debt was obtained as a result of fraudulent actions.

What is now known as the ‘ipso facto regime’ was introduced by the Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Enterprise Incentives No. 2) Act 2017 in September 2017, which inserted a number of provisions that provided for a stay on the exercise of certain ipso facto contractual rights in the context of corporate restructuring and insolvency procedures.

What is an ipso facto clause?

Corporate Australia is bracing for the long-awaited surge in insolvencies. As Australia’s largest creditor and, according to creditor reporting bureau Creditor Watch, responsible for the greatest number of company windups prior to the pandemic in 2019, the ATO can fairly be described as an influential, if not dominant, player in the restructuring and turnaround space and in corporate Australia more broadly.

The ATO effect

Contents:

In In re Roberts, No. 22-10521, 2022 WL 4592086 (Bankr. D. Colo. Sept. 23, 2022), the Bankruptcy Court of the District of Colorado (the “Bankruptcy Court”) held that a Debtor’s alleged ownership interest in cannabis-related companies did not require a dismissal of the case and that a Chapter 7 trustee could administer the Debtor’s assets. This represents a significant change from prior decisions from this Court, which has usually dismissed any bankruptcy case involving cannabis.

Background

Overview of corporate insolvency in Australia

On 28 September 2022, the Federal Government, through the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services (the Committee) commenced an inquiry into the effectiveness of Australia’s corporate insolvency laws in protecting and maximising value for the benefit of all interested parties and the economy.

This article was first published by the Financier World Wide.

Largely due to the worldwide economic turmoil caused by the global coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, recent years have seen global business disruption on a grand scale – a scorched corporate landscape ripe for distressed mergers and acquisitions (M&A) practitioners to pick over.

Trends in traditional M&A activity

This 2022 review provides an overview of recent Australian Restructuring and Insolvency activity along with the laws, their application and recent trends and development in restructuring and insolvency activity.

Chapters:

InBailey Tool & Mfg. Co. v. Republic Bus. Credit, LLC, 2021 Bankr. LEXIS 3502 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. Dec. 23, 2021), the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas clarified how aggressive a secured lender can be when enforcing its rights. The 145-page opinion details how a lending arrangement went “terribly wrong” and why awarding millions in damages was warranted.

Background