Over a nine month period to July 2018, amendments to the Corporations Act come into force which significantly limit the ability of corporate parties to rely on an ‘insolvency event’ to modify or terminate their contracts entered into after that date.
In Longley 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.
On 28 March 2017, the Australian Government announced its proposals to reform the law relating to insolvent trading, and the right to terminate contracts based on insolvency ('ipso facto clauses'). MinterEllison made a detailed submission on the proposals which can be found here.
While most Australians enter construction contracts with no issues whatsoever, there remain instances in which builders take advantage of consumers. For instance, we draw attention to the example of Tevita and Siosiana Ungounga’s (“the Ungoungas”) and theircompany, T & T Sandstone Construction Pty Ltd (“T & T Sandstone”), recently published by NSW Fair Trading.
The Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee has endorsed the passing of the Bankruptcy Amendment (Enterprise Incentives) Bill 2017 in its report dated 21 March 2018.
The Bill will align the bankruptcy period in Australia with the United Kingdom. Under the Bankruptcy Act 1996, the period of bankruptcy (unless a successful objection is made) is three years. If passed, the Bill will reduce the period to one year.
Key points to note are that:
Following the implementation of the Safe Harbor protections introduced last September, new changes to the Corporations Act 2001 come into force on 1 July 2018, significantly limiting the ability of parties to rely on insolvency as a means to terminate a contract. These changes intend to help facilitate the restructure and turnaround of struggling companies and are being hailed by insolvency practitioners as a long overdue softening of existing insolvency laws.
Foreign representatives may be required to pay security into court for their recognition applications under the Model Law on Cross Border Insolvency (Model Law). The measure is proposed to correct irregularities between proceedings conducted in multiple jurisdictions.
A recent NSW Supreme Court decision has decided that an insolvent contractor can claim under Security of Payment legislation, rejecting Victorian Court of Appeal precedent as "plainly wrong". It might have significant ramifications for participants in the building and construction industry across Australia.
In Seymour Whyte Constructions Pty Ltd v Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd (in liq) [2018] NSWSC 412, the NSW Supreme Court considered the extent to which Security of Payment (SOP) legislation can be relied upon by an insolvent contractor.
The entitlement to recover remuneration and costs for work performed in conducting an external administration is an ever-present fundamental concern for insolvency practitioners.
This week’s TGIF considers the case of White, in the matter of Mossgreen Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) v Robertson in which administrators sought directions on whether they hold a lien over consignor property to secure an alleged levy.
Background