Receivers and employees are the greatest losers from a recent chain of court cases. Unless overturned on appeal or by legislation, the cases impose financial burdens on employees and administrative burdens on receivers.

At stake are employees' accrued leave entitlements and the statutory requirement to pay them once a company enters external administration. Employees of companies in receivership can lose entitlements they would ordinarily receive during liquidation depending entirely on the time at which a company enters administration or liquidation.

In turbulent and uncertain financial times, employers and employees more often than ever find themselves immersed in and affected by insolvency proceedings. Particularly for employees, there is often misunderstanding and misinformation respecting the nature of the proceedings and employees’ rights thereunder. In this article, after a brief description of the most common forms of insolvency proceedings in Canada, the rights and entitlements of employees under these proceedings will be discussed.

Bankruptcy

One could almost be forgiven for thinking that nowadays delayed second creditors' meetings are just par for the course.

Applications to extend the time for the second meeting - often for months - have become quite routine, and are rarely (if ever) refused.

Some observers might thus wonder if we are losing sight of one of the objectives of the VA procedure - that it "should be expeditious".^[1]

Although the Australian voluntary administration regime served as the model for the UK administration system, one notable difference has emerged between the two systems: pre-packs.

Pre-packs – the use of a statutory insolvency regime to implement a pre-agreed debt / corporate restructuring – have not really taken off in Australia. In the UK, of course, they form a significant proportion of all administrations.

On 5 October 2011, the NSW Supreme Court upheld an application pursuant to s 440D(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the Corporations Act) for leave to bring and continue proceedings against a defendant under voluntary administration.

The statutory exemption can be refreshed each time a person signs a new contract, even if he/she continues to hold the same position.

Receivers of a failed company have been unable to convince the Federal Court that statutory restrictions on termination payments reduced the payout entitlement of a senior executive (White v Norman; In the Matter of Forest Enterprises Australia Limited (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (in Administration) [2012] FCA 33).

Background

Australia needs to rein in ipso facto clauses in order to develop a turnaround culture for financially troubled companies.

Within hours of Kodak's move into Chapter 11 bankruptcy, the internet was alive with bad jokes:

"Kodak's business didn't develop the way they expected."

"Kodak was overexposed to the GFC."

"Kodak's Chapter 11 hearing was held in camera."

Australian businesses and liquidators might be forgiven for thinking that the bigger joke is Australia's lack of a Chapter 11 turnaround culture.

Introduction  

Another failed property developer has just been made bankrupt in Australia, this time with a difference – he was already bankrupt in New Zealand. Bank of Western Australia (Bank) v David Stewart Henderson (No. 3) [2011] FMCA 840 is another Australian cross-border insolvency case in which we have successfully tested the boundaries of the Cross-Border Insolvency Act 2008 (Cth) (the CBIA), this time with the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth).

Introduction

New Zealand liquidators have had their powers recognised in Australia in a series of recent ground-breaking judgments.

These decisions in respect of Northern Crest Investments Limited, a New Zealand registered company listed on the ASX, demonstrate the broad powers which the courts are willing to provide to foreign representatives under the Cross-Border Insolvency Act 2008 (Cth) (the CBIA).

Obtaining powers of Australian liquidators

The UK Supreme Court, which is the UK's highest court, has handed down its long-awaited decision in Belmont Park Investments Pty Limited v BNY Corporate Trustee Services Limited and Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc [2011] UKSC 38, in which the Court considered the validity and enforceability of so-called "flip" clauses under English bankruptcy law.