In an announcement made on 23 August 2016, the Federal Government has provided insolvency practitioners with a further six months to implement certain provisions of the Insolvency Law Reform Act 2016 (Cth) (Act). The Act is aimed at streamlining registration and disciplinary processes and consolidating conduct and procedural requirements, to reduce costs associated with and improve timeliness of external administrations and ultimately increase creditor returns.

Structure of reforms

For companies with an appetite for strategic business growth rather than divestment, buying assets from insolvent companies is a particular avenue of opportunity. For example, in the current market, there may be opportunities to purchase oil & gas assets from companies that have not been able to survive the prolonged low oil price. Corporate Partner, Philip Mace, provides his top 'legal tips' for purchasing assets from, in this example, an English administrator of a company.

This is a follow-up to our previous client update on Swiber Holdings Limited written on 29 July 2016. To view our previous update, please click here.

Counterparties of Swiber Holdings Limited ("Swiber") and its group companies would do well to keep a close tab on any debts outstanding from the group.

Swiber, an SGX-listed company in the oil fields services sector, issued an announcement in the early hours of Thursday 28 July 2016 stating that it filed an application in the Singapore High Court for a voluntary winding up on Wednesday afternoon, together with an application to place the company under provisional liquidation.

The collapse of marine fuel trader OW Bunker & Trading A/S (“OW Bunker”) and its affiliates, in November 2014, has resulted in a blizzard of legal proceedings in the United States. Bunker suppliers and creditors of insolvent OW Bunker entities have sought to secure their claims by arresting vessels or proceeding directly against vessel owners and operators who contracted with OW Bunker entities to supply their vessels with bunkers.

The Personal Property Securities Register (“PPSR”) has operated for several years, but defective registrations remain a (sometimes serious) problem for many of those looking to protect their interests. Unlike with real property, the PPSR has no title registrars who will requisition faulty forms. The responsibility for noticing mistakes lies with the party attempting to protect their interests.

The Court of Appeal’s decision in the case of Heis v MF Global highlights the importance of documenting just who has responsibility for contributing to a defined benefit pension scheme.

EIS AND OTHERS V MF GLOBAL UK SERVICES LTD (IN ADMINISTRATION) [2016] EWCA CIV 569, [2016] ALL ER (D) 125 (JUN)

In Berryman v Zurich Australia Ltd [2016] WASC 196 it was decided that a bankrupt's entitlement to claim a TPD benefit under a life insurance policy is not an entitlement that is divisible amongst the bankrupt's creditors, and therefore such an entitlement does not vest in the Official Trustee in bankruptcy. Tottle J of the Supreme Court of Western Australia ruled that the bankrupt insured could continue an action in his own name to recover the TPD benefit. Life insurers may need to adjust their claims' payment practices in light of the Berryman decision.

A recent decision of the High Court has ended an insurer’s fight to avoid being joined to insolvent trading proceedings. This decision confirms the ability of liquidators to directly pursue proceeds of insurance policies held by insolvent insured defendant directors and has important ramifications for insolvency practitioners as well as insurers and litigation funders.

Summary

In the matter of Fat 4 Pty Limited (In Liquidation)

A recent case in the Supreme Court of Victoria has provided some relief for liquidators seeking to add a defendant to a voidable transaction claim after the expiry of the limitation period in circumstances where the wrong defendant was sued by mistake. In such circumstances, liquidators can substitute the incorrect party for the desired defendant without being time barred by s 588FF(3) of the Corporations Act, irrespective of whether the liquidator’s mistake as to the correct party was reasonable.