The restructuring, distressed and debt market in Australia continues to evolve. We have a competitive debt market that constantly seeks out that next transaction. We have an environment of innovation with restructuring professionals seeking to push the boundaries of what may be possible within the current legislative framework, and we have changes to that framework with the introduction of Safe Harbour as a defence to insolvent trading and ipso facto reform which seeks to lock in contracts post-insolvency.
'I can't be responsible for every single thing that goes on at Sports Direct. I can't be. I can't be!'
Mike Ashley founder and Executive Deputy Chairman Sports Direct appearing before the Business Innovation and Skills Select Committee (June 2016)
An important part of last year's package of amendments to the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) were the ipso facto reforms which will stay the exercise of certain contractual rights relating to a counterparty's insolvency or financial position. What, if any, contracts would be exempt from the stay has been a major question, not least for the construction industry.
This has now been answered, with the release of exposure drafts for public comment by May 11 2018 of the:
A recent NSW Supreme Court decision has decided that an insolvent contractor can claim under Security of Payment legislation, rejecting Victorian Court of Appeal precedent as "plainly wrong". It might have significant ramifications for participants in the building and construction industry across Australia.
In Seymour Whyte Constructions Pty Ltd v Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd (in liq) [2018] NSWSC 412, the NSW Supreme Court considered the extent to which Security of Payment (SOP) legislation can be relied upon by an insolvent contractor.
Obtaining Decree
After obtaining a Decree (or judgment in England) there are a number of steps that can be taken, if the debtor does not make payment, to recover the outstanding debt. In Scotland this process is known as “diligence”.
Charge for payment (“Charge”)
Stakeholders have until 11 May 2018 to comment on a key part of the new ipso facto regime – the exceptions to the statutory stay on ipso facto clauses in certain categories of contracts and rights.
The new insolvency legislation commencing 1 July 2018 (Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Enterprise Incentives No. 2) Act 2017) introduces a statutory stay on the exercise of contractual rights arising by reason of certain insolvency trigger events.
Lord Bannatyne has issued his opinion in respect the Note of The Provisional/Interim Liquidator of Equal Exchange Trading Limited [2018] CSOH 35 which gives guidance in respect of the role of the court reporter when fixing the remuneration of a liquidator. The full opinion can be viewed here.
Background
In LRH Services Ltd (in Liquidation) v Raymond Arthur Trew (1) Jason Marcus Brewer (2) and Derek O'Neill (3) [2018] EWHC 600 (Ch), LRH Services Ltd (LRH), acting by its liquidators, brought claims for breach of duty against three former directors. The claims arose from a reorganisation in 2009. LRH did not trade but had two trading subsidiaries (R and E) and it was wholly owned by CSGH, which also had another subsidiary in addition to LRH, CSG. Two of the directors of LRH were substantial shareholders in CSGH.
The reorganisation
Toone v Robbins 2018 [EWHC] 569 (Ch)
The lessons to takeaway
Directors who are also shareholders need to be careful when arranging how to take payments from a company. For tax reasons, dividends can be perceived to be an attractive way to take cash out of a company, but if there are insufficient distributable reserves, such payments are unlawful and can be clawed back.