The New South Wales Supreme Court recently confirmed that an insolvent construction contractor is not able to immediately enforce its right to payment of an adjudication decision under the NSW Security of Payment legislation (Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW)) against another party which has an offsetting claim.

On 16 April 2018, the Australian Federal Government (Government) launched a public consultation on proposed exceptions to the recently enacted stay on ipso facto clauses. These exceptions, which will be contained in a forthcoming declaration and regulations, will be critical to the operation of the new ipso facto regime, and its impact on stakeholders.

In the recent case of Cash Generator Limited v Fortune and others [2018] EWHC 674 (Ch), the Court determined that non-compliance with the deemed consent procedure for nominating liquidators did not invalidate their appointment. The case provides a useful summary on the relatively new provisions governing the deemed consent procedure and welcome relief to Insolvency Practitioners (“IPs”) that a failure to fully comply with such provisions will not necessarily invalidate their appointment.

Brief facts and arguments

The recent appellate decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court on 19 April 2018 in White, in the matter of Mossgreen Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) v Robertson [2018] FCAFC 63 (Re Mossgreen) provides guidance regarding equitable liens and a stern warning to insolvency professionals to seek directions from the Court before engaging in conduct which affects property of third parties.

Highlights

Stakeholders have until 11 May 2018 to comment on a key part of the new ipso facto regime – the exceptions to the statutory stay on ipso facto clauses in certain categories of contracts and rights.

The new insolvency legislation commencing 1 July 2018 (Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Enterprise Incentives No. 2) Act 2017) introduces a statutory stay on the exercise of contractual rights arising by reason of certain insolvency trigger events.

In September 2017, the Australian government introduced the most significant reforms to Australia's insolvency regime for the past 30 years with the enactment of the Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Enterprise Incentives No. 2) Act 2017 (Cth).

Employees as Operational Creditor

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as “Code”) considers all employees and workmen as operational creditors.

Operational Creditor is defined under Section 5 (20) of the IB Code as: 

"Operational creditor" means a person to whom an operational debt is owed and includes any person to whom such debt has been legally assigned or transferred;”

Operational Debt is defined under Section 5 (21) of the Code which states that: 

Commonly, a creditor being sued by a liquidator to refund an alleged unfair preference is owed money by the company in liquidation.

Liquidators argue that under section 553(c)(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Act) a creditor is not able to set-off the outstanding indebtedness owed by the company to the creditor to reduce any liability of the creditor to refund any unfair preference. Similar arguments are made by liquidators in relation to insolvent trading claims.

A snapshot of the court decisions

An important part of last year's package of amendments to the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) were the ipso facto reforms which will stay the exercise of certain contractual rights relating to a counterparty's insolvency or financial position. What, if any, contracts would be exempt from the stay has been a major question, not least for the construction industry.

This has now been answered, with the release of exposure drafts for public comment by May 11 2018 of the: