If you have guaranteed the debts of a person or entity that is in financial distress, you should take legal advice as soon as possible. Whatever you do, do not panic and make a rash decision such as declaring bankruptcy, winding up your business or selling your family home. The creditor seeking to enforce the guarantee may be more amenable to compromise than you think, particularly given the risks that creditors often face when they seek to enforce guarantees.

This week’s TGIF considers In the matter of Arrium Limited [2018] NSWSC 747 in which the Court granted creditors access to documents produced in public examinations.

What happened?

Phoenixing involves stripping and transferring the assets out of a company, leaing it to perish in a blaze to avoid paying its liabilities. A new company is then reborn from the ashes of the old company, starting anew and liability free, however usually with the same assets and business as the old company.

From a public policy standpoint, phoenixing activity is harmful to the economy as a whole. Creditors are often left with nothing and employees are left short-changed.

What are the reforms?

The Supreme Court of Western Australia has recently made a freezing order in the matter of Trans Global Projects Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) (TGP) v Duro Felguera Australia Pty Ltd (Duro) [2018] WASC 136.

This decision sheds light on:

The operation of section 133 

The law currently provides an easy out for trustees of a bankrupt, specifically in respect of real property  

Section 133 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) (the Act) provides an option for the trustee in bankruptcy to disclaim real property where it is burdened by onerous covenants. This disclaimer is often exercised where the amount owed in the form of a mortgage and further caveats or covenants registered on title of the real property exceeds the value of the property.  

The new ipso facto regime applies to all contracts to be entered into on or after 1 July 2018. Businesses should now be carefully reviewing the effect of that regime on their contracts and whether any of their contracts may be exempt under the Corporations Amendment (Stay on Enforcing Certain Rights) Regulations 2018 published on 24 June 2018.

The types of contracts excluded from the new ipso facto stay

From next week the much hyped stay on ipso facto rights in certain contracts will be law. The relevant Legislation, Regulations and Declarations1 commence this Sunday, 1 July 2018.

"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.