Significant emerging factors and trends are increasing pressure on directors. After several years of relative stasis induced by the pandemic (when many businesses were supported by various government initiatives and bank flexibility, whilst also enjoying ATO and creditor patience), there is a distinct whiff of change in the air. This year, we might see a move back to a more ‘normal’, pre-COVID setting. If so, there will be pressures for some, and opportunity for others.

In an environment of interest rate pressure, a cooling economy and global economic uncertainty, corporate insolvencies are a stark reality. The failure of construction companies has become regular news and ASIC recently released insolvency data that shows a marked uptick in Australian insolvencies in general.

The introduction of the ‘ipso facto regime’ in 2018 had a widespread impact on the drafting and application of termination provisions in commercial contracts, casting doubt on the longstanding practice of allowing a right to terminate a contract when another party to the contract becomes insolvent.

On 6 September 2020, the Federal Government announced its intention to extend the insolvency relief measures put in place in March 2020 as part of its response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The relief measures were due to expire in September 2020, but will now expire on 31 December 2020.

On the 22nd of March, the Federal Government announced a suite of temporary changes to insolvency laws to help struggling businesses dealing with the economic fallout of the coronavirus.¹ These changes have been designed to act as a ‘safety net’, minimising the threat of actions that could unnecessarily push businesses into insolvency and, instead, allowing them to continue trading.

Changes to Demands from Creditors

"Ipso facto" amendments to the Corporations Act - what does this mean and what impact does it have on your contracts from 1 July 2018?

Overview

Commercial contracts commonly include a term which permits one party to exercise certain contractual rights (including the right to terminate) if the other party is either insolvent or at the risk of becoming insolvent. Such clauses are commonly called “ipso facto” clauses.

On 13 June 2017 the Australian Financial Review published an article titled “SumoSalad uses Insolvency Laws to fight Scentre’s Westfield”.

Frequently a debtor’s assets are sold out of bankruptcy “free and clear” of liens and claims under §363(f).  While the Bankruptcy Code imposes limits on this ability to sell assets, it does allow the sale free and clear if “such interest is in bona fide dispute” or if the price is high enough or the holder of the adverse interest “could be compelled ... to accept a money satisfaction of such interest” or if nonbankruptcy law permits such sale free and clear of such interest.

On February 5, 2016 the IRS released Chief Counsel Advice Memorandum Number 201606027 (the IRS Memo) concluding that “bad boy guarantees” may cause nonrecourse financing to become, for tax purposes, the sole recourse debt of the guarantor. This can dramatically affect the tax basis and at-risk investment of the borrowing entity’s partners or members. Non-recourse liability generally increases the tax basis and at-risk investment of all parties but recourse liability increases only that of the guarantor.

A long-honored concept in real property, that of “covenants running with the land,” is finding its way into the bankruptcy courts. If a covenant (a promise) runs with the land then it burdens or benefits particular real property and will be binding on the successor owner; if that covenant does not run with the land then it is personal and binds those who promised but does not impose itself on a successor owner.