As participants in the Australian debt restructuring market continue to innovate we expect to see an increase in these control transactions, testing further again the Australian statutory regimes.

The Virgin sale shows the flexibility of Australia's restructuring regime and sets a significant judicial precedent for future control transactions.

Virgin Airlines restructured through voluntary administration

On 20 April 2020, Virgin Australia and a number of its subsidiaries were placed into voluntary administration owing $7 billion of debt to around 12,000 creditors with partners at Deloitte Australia being appointed as joint and several voluntary administrators of Virgin. Clayton Utz was appointed to act for the Administrators.

Overseas developments might have inspired mooted changes to create a debtor in possession model in Australia.

2021 began with a sense of optimism, but COVID-19 is continuing to wreak havoc on the Australian economy. The Commonwealth Bank of Australia is forecasting a 0.7% decline GDP in the September quarter and a likely rise in unemployment in July. New South Wales in particular, is expected to be hit very hard.

Unusual circumstances have spurred innovation and ground-breaking responses which will reshape restructuring and insolvency.

Just when you thought it was safe to return to your favourite local restaurant and that COVID-19 had exclusive rights to 2020, we find ourselves once again working from home and having to cope with the lingering effects of the virus. Unfortunately for corporate Australia, the COVID virus is as contagious as it always was for your business… but there is a light at the end of the tunnel for some.

The Supreme Court of Canada’s recent decision in Canada v.Canada North Group Inc.[1] provided much needed clarity regarding the order of priority for unremitted source deductions in restructuring proceedings.

The latest decision in the Arrium collapse should give some encouragement to Australia's restructuring sector.

Following a lengthy trial of 38 days in the NSW Supreme Court in March and April 2021, Justice Michael Ball (no relation) has handed down the decision in the two proceedings, Anchorage Capital Masters Offshore Ltd v Sparkes (No 3); Bank of Communications Co Ltd v Sparkes (No 2) [2021] NSWSC 1025.

In dismissing these proceedings, Justice Ball has given some comfort to restructuring in Australia,

Suppliers and subcontractors in the construction industry should be mindful of a recent unreported decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. In Carillion Canada Inc. (Re), the Court held that an automatic cash sweep of Carillion’s Ontario bank account rid the funds of their trust character leaving Carillion’s subcontractors in Canada with no proprietary claim to $22 million sitting in an overseas bank account maintained with a global bank (the “Bank”).

Before embarking on any litigation, or continuing any litigation that is on foot at the time of the liquidator's appointment, a liquidator should carefully weigh up the benefits and risks of pursuing a particular course of action.

A liquidator can be exposed personally in litigation. We discuss the risks to a liquidator associated with litigation by examining some recent cases where liquidators have been ordered to pay costs personally. We provide guidance on ways to mitigate this risk.

Balancing risk – weighing up competing priorities

Reverse vesting orders (or “RVOs”) allow the realization of value from assets of a debtor company in circumstances where a traditional transaction model is not effective, preserving the value of permits, tax losses and other assets which cannot be transferred to a purchaser. Two recent decisions demonstrate the willingness of courts to embrace creative solutions, where appropriate, to realize value for stakeholders.

What is a Reverse Vesting Order?

The Alberta Court of Appeal recently released a decision in Bellatrix Exploration Ltd.’s (“Bellatrix”) proceedings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA”), in which the Court dismissed Bellatrix’s appeal of the lower court’s decision that certain agreements (the “Contract”) between Bellatrix and BP Canada Energy Group ULC (“BP”) constituted an eligible financial contract (“EFC”).