In an announcement made on 23 August 2016, the Federal Government has provided insolvency practitioners with a further six months to implement certain provisions of the Insolvency Law Reform Act 2016 (Cth) (Act). The Act is aimed at streamlining registration and disciplinary processes and consolidating conduct and procedural requirements, to reduce costs associated with and improve timeliness of external administrations and ultimately increase creditor returns.

Structure of reforms

The Personal Property Securities Register (“PPSR”) has operated for several years, but defective registrations remain a (sometimes serious) problem for many of those looking to protect their interests. Unlike with real property, the PPSR has no title registrars who will requisition faulty forms. The responsibility for noticing mistakes lies with the party attempting to protect their interests.

Like most companies that file for chapter 11 protection, many debtors in the health care industry may have outstanding liabilities that have not been finally adjudicated as of the petition date. This can include tort claims based on allegations of medical malpractice, elder abuse, patient dumping, violations of a patient’s bill of right or various other allegations of improper care. Bankruptcy courts can estimate the value of these claims to facilitate the speedy confirmation of a debtor’s plan without subjecting the debtor to a lengthy trial during its restructuring.

A recent decision of the High Court has ended an insurer’s fight to avoid being joined to insolvent trading proceedings. This decision confirms the ability of liquidators to directly pursue proceeds of insurance policies held by insolvent insured defendant directors and has important ramifications for insolvency practitioners as well as insurers and litigation funders.

Summary

In the matter of Fat 4 Pty Limited (In Liquidation)

A recent case in the Supreme Court of Victoria has provided some relief for liquidators seeking to add a defendant to a voidable transaction claim after the expiry of the limitation period in circumstances where the wrong defendant was sued by mistake. In such circumstances, liquidators can substitute the incorrect party for the desired defendant without being time barred by s 588FF(3) of the Corporations Act, irrespective of whether the liquidator’s mistake as to the correct party was reasonable.

Ever since the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit decided Zeig v. Mass. Bonding & Insurance Co. in 1928, it has been well-settled that a policyholder can compromise a disputed claim with its insurer for less than the full limits of the policy without putting its rights to excess coverage at risk.

On 29 February 2016, the Insolvency Law Reform Bill 2015 received Royal Assent. The resulting Act, the Insolvency Law Reform Act 2016 (Cth) represents the most significant suite of reforms to Australia’s bankruptcy and corporate insolvency laws in twenty years and is an integral component of the Federal Government’s agenda of improving economic incentives for innovation and entrepreneurialism.

In a decision handed down on 11 February 2016, the High Court has confirmed that the State Supreme Courts have jurisdiction to grant relief to plaintiffs seeking to join insurers of insolvent or potentially insolvent defendants, and a declaration that the insurer is liable to indemnify the defendant. 

Introduction

Tamaya Resources Limited (In Liq) v Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu [2016] FCAFC 2

It is common in large complex cases for plaintiffs to seek to amend their claims during the course of the litigation. A plaintiff may be required to pay the costs thrown away but if its amendment application was brought in good faith and with a proper explanation, it would usually be able to amend its claim.

Last month, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit upheld the Bankruptcy Court and United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida determination that the authorized swapping of parts among aircraft to maximize efficiency “did not and could not commingle the participants’ ownership interests.” In re Avantair Inc., No. 15-10303, slip op. (Eleventh Circuit, February 3, 2016). The ruling helps to clarify uncertainties regarding the legal status of fractional ownership arrangements.

Brief Overview