The COVID-19 pandemic together with Brexit have meant many commercial relationships have had to stop or risk having to do so in the future. Are you ready to deal with what happens if any of your key contracts terminate?

No contract is 100% ‘Brexit-proof’. The current uncertainty about whether there will or won’t be a trade deal with the EU makes it unclear what contracts will be profitable and which won’t in 2021. For many businesses, some of their contractual relationships may well become untenable in the period after 11pm on 31 December 2020.

Following Treasury’s announcement on 24 September 2020 that it will introduce a suite of reforms to Australia’s insolvency framework, the Corporations Amendment (Corporate Insolvency Reforms) Bill 2020 (Cth) (Draft Bill) was released for public consultation between 7 and 12 October 2020, providing much needed clarity as to the practical effect of the insolvency reforms, which are expected to commence on 1 January 2021.

New legislation has come into effect which extends the applicability of certain temporary provisions under the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (“CIGA”). But what does this mean for businesses?

In several ways, businesses can continue to make use of the breathing space provisions brought in by CIGA to support their day-to-day work in keeping their companies afloat during the pandemic.

2020 has evolved in a way no-one could have predicted, and there is still much uncertainty as to what the future looks like (particularly as a result of Government stimulus payments and rent freezes varying or coming to an end, and newly announced insolvency law reforms that will affect businesses with liabilities of less than $1 million). While the outlook is not entirely pessimistic, suppliers should be preparing themselves for all scenarios.

Welcome to our latest edition of FMCG Express! 2020 continues to be an eventful year, although we are cautiously optimistic that we may be turning a corner in Australia. While COVID-19 continues to cast a shadow over our lives, our cities are starting to show green shoots of life, which is welcome news. Our thoughts are with our families, clients, associates, friends and colleagues in countries where numbers are at very concerning levels. In this edition, we have some useful COVID-19 reading. Siobhan Mulcahy considers the ongoing issues of JobKeeper with casual workers.

In the recent decision of Cant v Mad Brothers Earthmoving,[1] the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria (Justices Beach, McLeish and Hargrave) considered whether the liquidator of Eliana Construction and Developing Group (in liquidation) (Eliana) could establish that a payment made to an unsecured creditor of Eliana by one of Eliana’s related companies was an unfair preference.

The recent Federal Court decision of Scott v Southern Highlands Waste & Recycling Pty Ltd[1] provides liquidators with important guidance regarding the availability of search and seizure warrants under section 530C of the Corporations Act2001 (Cth) (the Corps Act).

In Caron and Seidlitz v Jahani and McInerney in their capacity as liquidators of Courtenay House Pty Ltd (in liq) & Courtenay House Capital Trading Group Pty Ltd (in liq) (No 2),[1] the New South Wales Court of Appeal was faced with what it described as the ‘classic insolvency conundrum’: how to distribute funds to investors as equally and as fairly as possible where the funds have

The recently announced proposed insolvency reforms draw on key features from Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the United States and aim to help more small businesses restructure and survive the economic impact of COVID-19.

The reforms will cover around 76% of businesses subject to insolvencies today, 98% of whom have less than 20 employees.[1]

The Judge in the Sunbird scheme of arrangement sanction hearing has declined to sanction the scheme due to the “paucity of information” provided by the company to the creditors ahead of the creditor vote.

The Judge criticised the company’s general approach to the way in which it engaged with creditors, particularly those whom the directors felt would be obstructive to the scheme’s progress. In general terms, the Judge commented on the practice of lock-up agreements and highlighted concerns with the payment of lock-up fees.