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.
(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Dec. 4, 2017)
The bankruptcy court grants the motion to dismiss, finding the defendant’s security interest in the debtor’s assets, including its inventory, has priority over the plaintiff’s reclamation rights. The plaintiff sold goods to the debtor up to the petition date and sought either return of the goods delivered within the reclamation period or recovery of the proceeds from the sale of such goods. Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 546(c), the Court finds the reclamation rights are subordinate and the complaint should be dismissed. Opinion below.
(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Nov. 22, 2017)
(B.A.P. 6th Cir. Nov. 28, 2017)
The Sixth Circuit B.A.P. affirms the bankruptcy court’s dismissal of the Chapter 12 bankruptcy case. The court finds that the bankruptcy court failed to give the debtor proper notice and opportunity to be heard prior to the dismissal. However, the violation of due process was harmless error. The delay in filing a confirmable plan and continuing loss to the estate warranted the dismissal. Opinion below.
Judge: Preston
Attorney for Appellant: Heather McKeever
(6th Cir. Nov. 14, 2017)