From 1 July 2018, amendments to the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) in the form of a new ‘ipso facto’ regime come into effect. The new amendments are part of the Federal Government’s commitment to assisting builders in financial distress.
Background
Significant reforms to Australia’s insolvency law introducing a “safe harbour” for directors who suspect their company may become or be insolvent have now commenced.
The Corporations Act imposes a duty on company directors to prevent a company from trading whilst insolvent. A director of a company can be personally liable for any debts incurred by a company trading whilst insolvent and might also have civil or criminal penalties imposed against them.
On 1 September 2017, the remaining parts of the new Insolvency Practice Schedule (IPS) introduced by the Insolvency Law Reform Act 2016 (Cth) as Schedule 2 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act) commenced operation, including the provisions relating to "funds handling" contained in Division 65 of the IPS. These provisions apply to all "external administrations"1. including those that commenced prior to 1 September 20172.
This week’s TGIF considers Ziziphus Pty Ltd v Pluton Resources Ltd (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (in liq) [2017] WASCA 193, where the Court considered the impartiality and independence of liquidators.
BACKGROUND
Factoring agreements are very popular with subcontractors and suppliers in the construction industry, assisting cash-flow by providing a line of credit against accounts receivable. However, like any financial product, they can present complexities, pitfalls and at times surprises when pursuing debt recovery and enforcement action.
Where a subcontractor is factoring its debts:
Australia’s restructuring landscape has changed significantly in recent weeks on two fronts. One of the changes arises from the safe harbour and ipso facto reforms to Australia’s insolvency laws receiving royal assent on 18 September 2017. The second event arose rather more unexpectedly from the Federal Court decision of Re Korda, in the matter of Ten Network Holdings Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed)(Receivers and Managers Appointed) [2017] FCA 914 (Ten Decision).
In a series of recent decisions1, the Federal Court of Australia has held that section 588FL of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act) operates such that any new security granted by a company in external administration2. that could only be perfected by registration on the Personal Property Securities Register (PPSR), and which is not the subject of an effective registration made before the appointment of the external administrator, will be ineffective3.
The Boart Longyear decisions confirm that class constitution remains a critical issue for review when pursuing creditors' schemes of arrangement.
The New South Wales Court of Appeal has recently confirmed the circumstances in which companies seeking approval of schemes of arrangement will be required to convene separate meetings for different classes of creditors.
Class constitution: key principles
Following a suite of recent reforms to Australian insolvency laws, liquidators are now able to assign rights to sue, conferred on them personally by the Corporations Act. The new power to assign is broad. It appears that the implications of the power will need to be clarified by the judiciary before they are fully understood.
In this article, we look at the issues that arise from these legislative amendments along with the opportunities created.
This week’s TGIF considers the case of Lane (Trustee), in the matter of Lee (Bankrupt) v Commissioner of Taxation [2017] FCA 953, where the Federal Court considered whether the claims of ‘non trust’ creditors in a bankruptcy are to be treated differently than like creditors in a corporate insolvency.
BACKGROUND