This week’s TGIF considers Gogetta Equipment Funding Pty Ltd v Mark & Liz Pty Ltd [2018] VSC 91, which examined a priority contest between competing equitable interests in property.

What happened?

From 1 July 2018, new restrictions will come into effect preventing parties from enforcing certain rights (including termination rights) triggered by insolvency events. The new laws seek to assist businesses undergoing financial distress to “maximise their chances of survival”, as termination of valuable contracts could potentially prevent such businesses from going through the necessary restructure in order to survive.

New York Bankruptcy Judge Sean H. Lane determined that the Australian debtors in a Chapter 15 foreign recognition proceeding satisfied the U.S. property requirements of Section 109(a) of the Bankruptcy Code on the basis of attorney retainers and claims against insiders located in the U.S.

This week’s TGIF considers the case of In the matter of Specialist Australian Security Group Pty Ltd (in liq) [2018] VSC 199 in which the Court considered the priority of administrators' right to an indemnity out of company property.

Background

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