The Safe Harbour reforms that became law on 19 September 2017 aim to create a better environment for the effective corporate rescue of distressed companies.

Insurance claims represent assets in insolvency which may be capable of realisation or assignment by an insolvency practitioner (IP). If properly managed, such claims can prove to be a significant source of recovery. However, in practice, the benefits of insurance are often lost for a variety of reasons, including:

This article was first published by INSOL International in December 2017.

Making sense of the purchase money security interest (PMSI) priority provisions in the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) (PPSA) can be challenging for financiers and insolvency practitioners tasked with assessing the merits of competing security interest claims.

The recent judgment of the Western Australian Court of Appeal in Hughes v Pluton Resources Ltd 1, concerns the interaction between a deed of company arrangement (‘DOCA’) under Part 5.3A of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (‘CA’) and the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) (‘PPSA’).

In today’s chapter 11 practice, third party releases are ubiquitous. A staple of the largest and most complex cases for years, plan provisions releasing and enjoining claims against non-debtors, particularly officers and directors, are now common place in most business reorganizations. While case law permits a bankruptcy court to enjoin claims against non-debtors in limited, fact-specific circumstances, plan proponents frequently achieve far broader releases by creditor consent. In re SunEdison, Inc.

The new section 588GA of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act) provides a “safe harbour” from insolvent trading claims for directors who, when suspecting a company may be or is insolvent, start developing a course of action that is reasonably likely to lead to a better outcome for the company.

In B.E. Capital Management Fund LP v. Fund.Com Inc., C.A. No. 12843-VCL (Del. Ch. October 4, 2017), the Delaware Court of Chancery denied an appeal from a receiver’s decision disallowing a claim for breach of contract against a company in receivership. The Court held that the appropriate standard of review for an appeal of a receiver’s decision was de novo as to both law and facts, and in particular, that the Court had discretion to consider additional evidence not presented on record to the receiver.

In the recent Federal Course case of Lane (Trustee), in the matter of Lee (Bankrupt) v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [2017] FCA 953 (Lane v DCT), Justice Derrington provided an in-depth analysis of the principles relating to an insolvent trustee’s right of indemnity over trust assets.

The amendments to the Corporations Act1 to broaden the ‘safe harbours’ for directors on an insolvency were passed by Parliament on 12 September 20172 and are awaiting a date for commencement.

The intention of the legislation is to “drive cultural change amongst company directors by encouraging them to keep control of their company, engage early with possible insolvency and take reasonable risks to facilitate the company’s recovery instead of simply placing the company prematurely into voluntary administration or liquidation.”3