In the recent case of Hadley v BetHQ Pty Ltd [2016] FCA 1263, the debtor company, BetHQ, came to grief when a statutory demand was validly served at the company’s registered office in Brisbane as shown in ASIC records. The premises were a serviced office; however BetHQ had ceased operations at the serviced office and had moved its operations to Victoria.

When a secured creditor appoints a receiver it is usual for them to sign an agreement setting out the terms of the receiver’s appointment, including payment of the receiver’s remuneration, costs and expenses. Appointment documents commonly contain indemnity clauses in which the secured creditor agrees to indemnify the receiver in specified circumstances.

In October 2016, Singapore’s Ministry of Law (“MOL”) launched a public consultation to gather public feedback on proposed amendments to the Companies Act for debt restructuring.[1]

In a November 17, 2016 ruling likely to impact ongoing debt restructurings, pending bankruptcy proceedings and negotiations of new debt issuances, the Third Circuit recently overturned refusals by both the Delaware bankruptcy court and district court to enforce “make-whole” payments from Energy Futures Holding Company LLC and EFIH Finance Inc. (collectively, “EFIH”) to rule that the relevant indenture provisions supported the payments. The case was remanded to the bankruptcy court for further proceedings.

On December 1, 2016, the amendments to Bankruptcy Rule 3002.1 aimed at clarifying when a secured creditor must file a payment change notice (“PCN”) in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy take effect. The new rule requires secured creditors to file PCNs on all claims secured by the Chapter 13 debtor’s primary residence for which the debtor or Chapter 13 Trustee is making post-petition payments during the bankruptcy, without regard to whether the debtor is curing a pre-petition arrearage.

In Huff Energy Fund v. Gershen, C.A. No. 11116-VCS, the Delaware Court of Chancery dismissed a stockholder’s challenge to the board of director’s decision to dissolve the company following an asset sale. The Court ruled that the enhanced scrutiny standards of Revlon and Unocal do not supplant the business judgment rule in the context of a company’s decision to dissolve.

In our previous bulletin we discussed the ‘safe harbour’ model in the Government’s suggested reforms to the current insolvency laws.

This bulletin considers another of the focus questions in the Proposal Paper: the voiding of ipso facto clauses relating to insolvency events.

Background

On 29 April 2016, the Federal Government released a Proposals Paper titled ‘Improving bankruptcy and insolvency laws’.

The Government is proposing these reforms to encourage entrepreneurship and investment. It hopes to reduce the stigma and detriment around failed business ventures, while still balancing the need to protect creditors.

The Third Party (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010 (the “2010 Act”) finally comes into force on 1 August 2016.

The 2010 Act makes it easier for a third party to bring a claim against an insurer when the insured party has become insolvent. The 2010 Act will replace the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 1930 (the “1930 Act”) and is designed to extend and improve the rights of third party claimants.

Policyholders contemplating insurance coverage settlements with low-level insurers should use caution to preserve their ability to access higher-level excess policies. Excess insurers are increasingly disputing that underlying policies are properly exhausted where policyholders elect to settle with underlying insurers for less than full limits. The issue can be further complicated if the policyholder seeks protection under the bankruptcy laws against long-tail liabilities, as a recent case illustrates.