Key Points:
In some circumstances a plaintiff/claimant can bypass a defendant (even an insolvent one) and seek a declaration against the defendant's insurer.
The High Court has confirmed that, if a defendant is insolvent, the plaintiff may seek a declaration that the defendant's insurer is liable to indemnify the defendant, at least when:
Before I hazard any kind of answer to the above, let me first declare my interest in the #Brexit / #Bremain debate, from the perspective of an insolvency lawyer.
Key Points:
A Senate Economics References Committee has recommended that the Commonwealth enact uniform national security of payment legislation, albeit with a target of around 2018 for implementation.
Security of payment (SOP) reform discussion papers were released by the Queensland and New South Wales Governments in the run up to Christmas. That timing happened to coincide with the publication by the Senate Economics References Committee of its report "'I just want to be paid': Insolvency in the Australian Construction Industry".
So-called “Creditor Portals”, and other similarly titled electronic platforms by which insolvency practitioners typically circulate any meaningful information to creditors about insolvent estates, have been a bugbear of mine ever since they were first used a little while ago. Don’t get me wrong; I absolutely applaud the attempt which they represent to minimise the amount of unnecessary paperwork circulating around the country and the savings of cost which they bring to the administration of insolvent estates where the cost of copying and posting alone would be absolutely frightening today.
Key Points:
Complex cross-border issues can be dealt with relatively easily under the Cross-Border Insolvency Act as long as flexibility is built into the relevant orders.
In a written statement this morning from Lord Faulks QC, Minister of State for Civil Justice, the government has announced that, from April 2016, insolvency litigation will no longer be exempt from what have been abbreviated to “the LASPO reforms”.
Key Points:
You can lead a director to the safe harbour, but you can't make him drink.
The Government's new approach to insolvency is long on rhetoric about risk taking and the need to remove the stigma of business failure.
However, it is short on detailed consideration of exactly why we have legal rules for corporate and personal insolvency.
Those rules aim to balance the interests of creditors against the need to encourage business start-ups.
Regular readers of my blogs over the years will know that I never pass up a chance to use a musical analogy for business problems. As an insolvency lawyer with a second calling treading the boards, my legal practice and my music frequently vie for my attention: never more so than during the Christmas season.
The Australian Government has accepted certain recommendations of the Productivity Commission's long-awaited Report on Business Set-up, Transfer and Closure, in an attempt to change the focus of Australia's insolvency laws from "penalising and stigmatising business failure”, according to the Minister for Small Business and Assistant Treasurer, the Hon Kelly O'Dwyer MP.
It has expressed a willingness to legislate to introduce at least two main changes:
Key Points:
It's unclear that safe harbours by themselves will provide genuine opportunities for restructuring distressed businesses.
The Productivity Commission's upcoming report on corporate insolvency will address two burning issues: ipso facto clauses and how to encourage directors to save financially-stressed companies.