As part of its second stimulus package in response to the developing novel coronavirus pandemic announced on 22 March 2020, the Australian Government has extended a lifeline to individuals and businesses facing financial distress by way of temporary changes to the laws of insolvency. There are four key features of the changes.

1. Temporary changes to creditor's statutory demands laws

With the rampant spread of COVID-19 worldwide, there are increasing concerns as to the financial impact of the outbreak. With forced business closures a potential reality, it seems inevitable that the Australian economy is on its way to a recession.

It is therefore critical that directors of companies are fully aware of the extent of their duties and understand what they must do to comply.

On March 6, 2020, the Ontario Court of Appeal (the “OCA”) released its decision in Royal Bank of Canada v. Bodanis (“Bodanis”),¹ holding that two debtors, each having an estate exceeding $10,000 in value, had appeals of their bankruptcy orders as of right under section 193 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act²(the “BIA”) and thus did not need to seek leave to appeal.

Section 193 reads as follows:

On 4 February 2020, the Federal Court of Australia considered the circumstances in which it might be said that a provisional liquidator of a company ought not be appointed as the official liquidator because of an alleged "reasonable apprehension of bias". The issue was ventilated before the Court in the matter of  Frisken (as receiver of Avant Garde Investments Pty Ltd v Cheema [2020] FCA 98.

Appointing a provisional liquidator

Entering into liquidation can be a scary time for any company and its officers, even one which chooses to do so voluntarily. However, the directors, shareholders and creditors of a company entering into liquidation do not have absolute discretion as to who they may appoint as the liquidator of the company. Together, the Corporations Act and common law principles of independence regulate the eligibility of a liquidator to be appointed to a company, and to remain in the appointment.

Overarching eligibility

What makes a contract an unprofitable contract which can be disclaimed by a trustee in bankruptcy without the leave of the Court under section 133(5A) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) (Bankruptcy Act)? Can a litigation funding agreement be considered an unprofitable contract when the agreement provides for a significant funder's premium or charge of 80% (85% in the case of an appeal)?

On December 30, 2019, the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador (the “NLSC”) released its decision in Re Norcon Marine Services Ltd.¹ (“Norcon Marine”), dismissing both an application by a debtor for continuance of its Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act² (“BIA”) proposal proceedings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act³ (“CCAA”) and a competing application by a secured creditor for the appointment of a receiver.

On October 10, 2019, the Supreme Court of British Columbia (the “BCSC” or the “Court”) released its decision in 8640025 Canada Inc. (Re)¹ (“8640025 Canada”), denying an application to replace the monitor (the “Monitor”) in a Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act² (the "CCAA") proceeding because the applicant was not a creditor and therefore had no standing to bring such an application.

On January 29, 2020, the Alberta Court of Appeal (the “Alberta CA”) released its decision in PricewaterhouseCoopers Inc. v Perpetual Energy Inc.¹ (“Perpetual Energy”), granting applications requiring a trustee in bankruptcy (the “Trustee”) to post security for costs on appeals brought by the Trustee.

The Quebec Court of Appeal’s unanimous decision in Gestion Éric Savard¹ reaffirms the super-priority ranking of CCAA² DIP financing³ over regular unpaid post-filing obligations, absent steps being taken to reverse this usual order of priorities.