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

Australia’s new ipso facto regime is now in effect. It stays the enforcement of contractual rights triggered upon the entry of a corporate counterparty into certain restructuring and insolvency processes. The regime will affect a broad range of contracts entered into on or after 1 July 2018; however, certain contracts and contractual rights have been excluded from the operation of the stay pursuant to statutory instruments which have just been issued.

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:

This week’s TGIF considers QBH Commercial Enterprises Pty Ltd (In liq)v Dalle Projects Pty Ltd & Ors [2018] VSC 171 in which the Court considered whether privilege can be waived by a director of a company in liquidation.

What happened?

QBH Commercial Enterprises (QBH) was placed into liquidation on 22 February 2018.

In late 2015, the High Court handed down its decision in Commissioner of Taxation v Australian Building Systems Pty Ltd (in liq) [2015] HCA 48. The High Court held (by a majority of 3:2) that, in the absence of an assessment, a liquidator is not required to retain funds from asset sale proceeds in order to meet a tax liability which could become payable as a result of a capital gain made on the sale. In doing so, the majority of the High Court affirmed the decision of the Full Federal Court and provided long awaited guidance to liquidators, receivers and administrators.

Introduction

The statutory demand is a formidable card up a creditor’s sleeve that can result in a company being deemed to be insolvent if it does not pay the creditor’s debt within 21 days of service of the demand. Whether a statutory demand served on an incorporated body other than an Australian company will be effective largely depends on the State or Territory in which the incorporated body is based and whether it is served pursuant to the correct section of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act).

What is a statutory demand?