The long-awaited new Practice Direction – Insolvency Proceedings (PDIP), which came into force on 25 April 2018, has now brought procedure into line with the changes introduced by the significant amendments to the Insolvency Act 1986 (the Act) introduced last year and the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016 (IR 2016), as amended. This has finally brought to an end the agonisingly long period (over 12 months) in which the provisions of the previous Practice Direction have been at odds with the Act as amended and IR 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.
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.
In light of the radically and rapidly changing face of bricks and mortar retail, cases providing guidance on the way in which liabilities are to be dealt with in the course of the restructuring / insolvency process are extremely valuable not only for stakeholders and practitioners dealing with the consequences of those processes but also to those guiding and devising the strategies in the first instance.
Wright and Rowley v Prudential Assurance Company Limited is one such case arising out of the collapse of the British Home Stores (‘BHS’) retailing group in 2016.
In handing over any documents in litigation or Court process, you must assess whether or not the documents have tax relevance.
The Court will closely examine the relevant transactions involving the accounts and form a view – which may be an impressionistic one – as to the likely extent of the interest of each client (or each client group) in those accounts.
The updates to the Guidance Note provide useful guidance on disclosure requirements in the context of the safe harbour reforms but ultimately, the status quo continues.
The ASX has updated its continuous disclosure guidance for entities in financial distress to address uncertainty following the recent introduction of the insolvent trading safe harbour provisions into the Corporations Act. While the ASX has provided useful guidance, unsurprisingly, the position has not changed and directors must continually assess compliance with continuous disclosure requirements.
Following a landmark decision in the Full Federal Court, employees will retain their priority to payment of their entitlements in a company liquidation, even where the company is a corporate trustee of a trust.