"Ipso facto" amendments to the Corporations Act - what does this mean and what impact does it have on your contracts from 1 July 2018?

Overview

Commercial contracts commonly include a term which permits one party to exercise certain contractual rights (including the right to terminate) if the other party is either insolvent or at the risk of becoming insolvent. Such clauses are commonly called “ipso facto” clauses.

Some of the most far-reaching Australian insolvency law changes are taking effect. These new laws will restrict the enforceability of a whole class of common clauses in contracts –so called 'ipso facto' clauses.

In this edition of FINSights, we explore what these changes mean for financiers, and outline key tips and issues they should consider as we move forward into the new regime.

What are ipso facto clauses?

This week’s TGIF considers the case ofMighty River International Ltd v Hughes, where the High Court upheld the validity of Holding DOCAs.

Case history

This case concerned the validity of a deed of company arrangement (DOCA) between Mesa Minerals Ltd (Mesa) and its creditors.

The Australian Federal Government's controversial ipso facto stay regime took effect on 1 July 2018.

The regime affects the ability of a contractual party to exercise rights, such as termination rights, that are triggered by the counterparty becoming insolvent. The ipso facto stay applies to all new contracts that are not carved out under the regime.

Contracts, agreements, arrangements and rights to which the stay on enforcing ipso facto clauses does not apply; final Regulations and Declaration published

The reform and its progress

In Short

The Background: The administrators of an Australian auction house and gallery business applied to the Federal Court of Australia for directions to recover in excess of $1 million in fees and costs incurred with respect to performing a stocktake of the auction house's inventory and returning consigned goods to owners.

The Issue: Did an equitable lien exist over the consigned goods in favour of the administrators for their fees and costs and, if so, could the administrators recover those fees and costs?

InLongley v Chief Executive, Department of Environment and Heritage Protection [2018] QCA 32, the Queensland Court of Appeal has clarified the ability of liquidators to disclaim onerous property, including obligations that arise in respect of that property under State environmental legislation.

Employers are being warned that the days of expecting taxpayers to cover staff entitlements for failed businesses may soon be over, with company bosses potentially being held legally liable for the business’ unpaid dues.

Brisbane employment law expert Michael Coates says employers need to know that under proposed new laws, unpaid wages from a collapsed business could be recovered from related business entities that are not insolvent in circumstances where it is just and equitable (that is, “fair”) to do so. However what exactly is “fair” is yet to be determined.

This week’s TGIF considers some ways insolvency practitioners can make their lives easier by proactively using the courts to resolve uncertainty – such as liquidators seeking appointment as receivers of trust property as in the recent Federal Court decision of Freeman; In the matter of Blue Oasis Holdings Pty Ltd [2018] FCA 822.

WHAT HAPPENED?

Liquidators were appointed to the corporate trustee of a family trust.

In the recent court decision of Trenfield v HAG Import Corporation (Australia) Pty Ltd [2018] QDC 107, the liquidators recovered unfair preferences from a retention of title creditor who argued it was a secured creditor.

The issues