In a recent decision in the Admiralty Court before Mr Admiralty Registrar Davison, the Court considered the application of the recently enacted section 233B of the Insolvency Act 1986. Whilst the conclusions reached on that provision are perhaps less surprising given its wide remit, the decision raises some interesting points for contract lawyers on the formation of contracts and the reasonableness of their terms.

Introduction – Section 233B of the Insolvency Act 1986 (Act)

The Treasurer has announced major proposed reforms to Australia’s insolvency framework aimed at facilitating the restructuring of small to medium businesses (MSMEs) and streamlining their liquidation if rescue is not achievable (Reforms). The Reforms are intended to come into effect from 1 January 2021, after the suite of current insolvency protections introduced to address the economic impact of COVID-19, expire on 31 December 2020.

While announcements have been made, and measures extended, to help corporate Britain, directors faced with the difficult decision of whether to trade on through the crisis could suddenly very exposed once again.

The focus on Modern Methods of Construction, or MMC, sharpened throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, with many wondering whether the outbreak and the consequential delays to existing construction projects would propel MMC forward as the future of construction.

The Australian Government has announced that the operation of temporary COVID-19 relief measures for businesses in the hope of aiding distressed companies and preventing further economic breakdown will be extended until 31 December 2020.[1]

As previously reported in our article of 21 May 2020, the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (Act), introduced a number of new tools for businesses suffering financial distress. One of the new measures introduced by the Act was the 'Restructuring Plan' – a process modelled on the existing scheme of arrangement (Scheme) but with the following key distinctions:

In its recent judgment involving the PAS Group of companies[1], the Federal Court held that rent payable by the PAS Group during an extension of the period in which an administrator had been excused from personal liability (Standstill Period) is an expense properly incurred by a ‘relevant authority in carrying on the company’s business’ and is therefore a priority debt under s 556(1)(a) of the Corporations

The UK's Supreme Court ("UKSC") has handed down its judgment following the hearing of the appeal in the case of Sevilleja v Marex Financial Limited [2020] UKSC 31 ("Marex"). The appeal was against the decision of the Court of Appeal to find that the rule of reflective loss applied to 90% of Marex's claim, which was brought in its capacity as a creditor.

The appeal was unanimously allowed by UKSC and it confirmed the rule did not extend to creditors.

The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act (CIGA 2020) came into force overnight on Friday 26 June and will have a significant impact on contracts and contract management, in the construction sector, and many others.

The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (CIGA) came into effect on 26 June 2020. Whilst the Act makes a number of changes to the insolvency regime (which are detailed in our Restructuring and Insolvency team's previous article), the focus of this section of the article is the potential effects of the CIGA from a pensions perspective.

Key message