Australia has now entered its first recession in 29 years, and the Australian Government has implemented a number of legislative reforms and other initiatives to support and provide temporary relief to businesses, including stimulus payments, enhanced asset write-off and flexibility in the application of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

The "true employer" question is one which frequently arises in insolvencies of corporate groups, and it also arises in solvent workplace dispute scenarios. Answering it, however, is often hampered by inconsistent or incomplete records and very divergent returns for employees, depending on the outcome of the question.

The COVID-19 pandemic and the associated lock downs have led to a global economic slowdown, and Australia has been no exception. GDP fell by 0.3% in the March quarter, and on 3 June 2020 Treasurer Josh Frydenberg announced that Australia was officially in its first recession in 29 years.

While the Australian Government was quick to provide a range of economic support measures – having already spent $289bn or 14.6% of GDP in an attempt to keep the economy afloat – Treasury expects Australia's GDP will decline by 0.5% in 2019-20 and a further 2.5% in 2020-21.

The Corporations Act 2001 sets out a regime for the order in which certain debts and claims are to be paid in priority to unsecured creditors.

That's straightforward enough for a liquidator, right?

Unfortunately, matters are not that straightforward. In effect, there are two priority regimes under the Act for the preferential payments of particular creditors, each of which applies to a different "fund", and we've observed this has led to some liquidators being unsure of how to proceed – or even worse, using funds they should not.

GOVERNANCE & SECURITIES LAW FOCUS

JULY 2020/LATIN AMERICA EDITION

Below is a summary of the main developments in U.S., EU, and U.K. corporate governance and securities law since our last update in May 2020.

See our page dedicated to the latest financial regulatory developments.

IN THIS ISSUE

This decision puts to rest some of the uncertainty which arose due to the NZCA's approach in Timberworld and helps to solidify liquidators' prospects of recovering maximum preferential payments. 

Preferential payments can be an important source of funding for liquidators – and the recent decision in Bryant in the matter of Gunns Limited v Bluewood Industries Pty Ltd [2020] FCA 714 is a source of some relief for liquidators.

Timberworld – uncertainty over the impact on Australian liquidators

GOVERNANCE & SECURITIES LAW FOCUS

JULY 2020/EUROPE EDITION

Below is a summary of the main developments in U.S., EU, U.K. and Italian corporate governance and securities law since our last update in April 2020.

See our page dedicated to the latest financial regulatory developments.

IN THIS ISSUE

UK CORPORATE INSOLVENCY AND GOVERNANCE ACT 2020

9 JULY 2020

IN THIS ISSUE:

Permanent Insolvency Changes A New Standalone Moratorium A New Restructuring Plan Ipso Facto Termination Clauses

Temporary Insolvency Changes Modification of Wrongful Trading Liability Statutory Demands Winding Up Petitions Winding Up Orders

Further Changes

Governance Changes Company Meetings Company Filings

Final Thoughts

On June 2, 2020, Judge Donald R. Cassling of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois held that a state executive order suspending dine-in services to address the COVID-19 pandemic (the “Executive Order”) constituted a force majeure event that partially excused performance under the applicable lease agreement. In re Hitz Restaurant Group, No. 20-B-05012, 2020 WL 2924523 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. June 2, 2020).

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS BANKRUPTCY COURT HOLDS THAT EXECUTIVE ORDER BARRING RESTAURANT OPERATIONS ON-PREMISES IN LIGHT OF COVID-19 IS A FORCE MAJEURE EVENT THAT PARTIALLY EXCUSES DEBTOR RESTAURANT’S PAYMENT UNDER THE LEASE