It is well understood that Australia's voluntary administration regime provides companies and their administrators with significant flexibility to promote business restructurings. This is in large part due to the statutory moratorium afforded to insolvent companies, allowing breathing space for the administrator to work with relevant stakeholders to promote a sale and/or restructuring via a deed of company arrangement.

In recent years, we have seen the deed of company arrangement or "DOCA" being used in Australia by sophisticated investors as a restructuring tool of choice. This is primarily due to the swiftness in which a DOCA can be implemented and its flexibility to effect a broad range of restructuring transactions with relative ease.

To those familiar with both U.S. and Australian insolvency regimes, Australia's creditors' scheme of arrangement (Scheme) may appear, at first glance, to resemble a Chapter 11 restructuring in disguise. This is because both regimes facilitate creditor compromise, allow incumbent management to remain in control, involve court supervision and rely on class-based voting structures to approve a restructuring outcome.

A statutory demand is a formal notice under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act) requiring a company to pay a debt or provide security within a prescribed timeframe. Ignoring it can have serious consequences, including insolvency proceedings. In an era of digital communication, can a statutory demand be validly served by email?

What does the law say?

In the current environment of heightened geopolitical tension, including the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz and impacts on regional oil and gas infrastructure, global supply chain disruption and volatility in energy markets, force majeure provisions are more important than ever.

Licensing has been a focus topic in our team lately and for good reason. If you’re a residential builder or a specialist trade in NSW, then no ticket, no play.

While the facts of the decision in Leto v Secretary Department of Customer Service [2026]NSWCATOD 26 (Leto v Secretary) are obviously very specific, an insolvency in an applicant’s trading history is frequently a barrier to licensing and is frequently an inducement to do whatever is necessary to avoid insolvency, so as to retain a licence or the future prospect of one.

Strategy cannot override practitioner's duties to the court or interfere with the interest of finality and efficiency of the justice system.

Litigation is often a series of strategic plays. The Full Federal Court decision in Madden (Receiver) v Mining Standards International Pty Ltd [2025] FCAFC 142 provides helpful guidance regarding the difference between impermissible tactical claim splitting and legitimate financial constraints influencing a party’s approach in litigation.

This week’s TGIF considers the recent decision of the New South Wales Court of Appeal in Ample Skill Ltd v Reidy[2025] NSWCA 32, in which rule 75-250 of the Insolvency Practice Rules (Corporations) 2016 (Cth)(the Insolvency Rules) was construed by an appellate court for the first time.

Key takeaways

Overview

When a company enters financial distress, contractual enforcement rights are often among the first to be affected. The ipso facto stay under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) restricts the enforcement of certain rights that arise because of an insolvency event. These events include voluntary administration, the appointment of a managing controller over the whole or substantially the whole of a company’s property, and proposals for schemes of arrangement.