On 11 September 2017, major reforms to Australia's insolvency laws including an insolvent trading safe harbour and a restriction on the enforcement of ipso facto rights in certain circumstances passed through the Senate. These insolvency reforms amend relevant provisions of the Corporations Act.

The safe harbour provisions commenced on 19 September 2017.

This interview was conducted by Lucy Trevelyan at LexisNexis. The views expressed by the interviewees are not necessarily those of the proprietor.

Property Analysis: A recent Court of Appeal decision on the payment of service charges, while correct in principal, was wrong on the facts, according to Peter Petts, barrister at Hardwicke Chambers.

Original News

Skelton and others v DBS Homes (Kings Hill) Ltd [2017] EWCA Civ 1139, All ER (D) 196 (Jul)

In a big 24 hours for restructuring and insolvency, the safe harbour reforms were passed by the Senate late last night, and anti-phoenixing reforms were announced this morning.

Safe harbour reforms

The safe harbour laws will commence operation the day after the Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Enterprise Incentives No. 2) Bill 2017 receives Royal Assent, with the ipso facto provisions set to commence on 1 July 2018 (or earlier by proclamation).

This article was first published in Insolvency Intelligence 2017 30(6) and is now available on Westlaw.

To perfect a security interest by possession, a secured party must have actual or apparent possession of the property. A contractual right to possess is not enough.

We now have the first judicial guidance in Australia on the concept of "perfection by possession" under the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (PPSA) (Knauf Plasterboard Pty Ltd v Plasterboard West Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) (Receivers and Managers Appointed) [2017] FCA 866).

What is "perfection by possession"?

The High Court confirmed that it is generally not appropriate to present a winding up petition to recover sums due under a construction contract, particularly where those sums are disputed or there is a legitimate cross claim.

A professional negligence claim against trustees in bankruptcy alleging that they had unnecessarily prolonged the bankruptcies and caused the bankrupts’ loss failed. The Trustees had agreed not to take steps in the bankruptcies while Dr Oraki and her husband made repeated applications to set aside the judgment upon which their bankruptcy orders were made and annul their bankruptcies under s 282(1)(a) of the Insolvency Act 1986, which they eventually succeeded in doing.

'B’ appealed an Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) s 279(3) order suspending her discharge from bankruptcy until ‘T’ confirmed B had complied with her IA 1986 duties. B traded through a company, which entered voluntary liquidation in November 2014. B’s personal guarantee of company debt led to a bankruptcy order in February 2015. 

This case arose from the ongoing administration of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (‘LBIE’). The appeal considered the proper ranking of certain subordinated debt in the insolvency ‘waterfall’, among other matters.

Held

The first issue concerned the construction of debt instruments subordinated to amounts ‘payable in the insolvency’. It was held that such amounts included statutory interest and non-provable debts, and accordingly those liabilities must be met before any balance could be used to pay off the subordinated loans.

The Defendant (‘D’) was a director of the Claimant, (‘RHIL’) and its subsidiary, (‘BTSC’), which provided training courses. In 2010 D appointed MG as administrator of BTSC and MG arranged a pre-pack sale of the business. The purchaser paid nothing for the business but assumed responsibility for the training, thereby limiting BTSC’s liability for course fee refunds.