The Australian Government is proposing to constrain certain "ipso facto" clauses ‒ a move which could make flip clauses void. The closing date for submissions is Friday 27 May 2016.
How would changes to ipso facto clauses affect securitisation?
This week’s TGIF considers the recent NSW Court of Appeal decision of Commissioner of Taxation of the Commonwealth of Australia v 4 Doonan Street Collinsville Pty Ltd (in liq) [2016] NSWCA 69 in which the Court considered the validity of the Commissioner of Taxation’s treatment of debits and credits in an insolvency context.
FACTS
WHO SHOULD READ THIS
- Industry participants in the construction sector.
THINGS YOU NEED TO KNOW
- The deadline for comments on the Improving Bankruptcy and Insolvency Laws Proposals Paper is 27 May 2016.
WHAT YOU NEED TO DO
The NSW Supreme Court recently handed down its decision in Re HIH Insurance Limited (In Liq)[1]. This long-running saga began with the collapse 15 years ago of Australia’s (then) second largest insurance company, HIH Insurance Limited, and has since seen a royal commission, the imprisonment of various senior management figures, and losses totalling more than $5 billion.
The decision in Re Forge Group Construction Pty Ltd (in liq) (Receivers and Managers appointed); ex parte Jones [No 2] [2016] WASC 87 confirms that while some communications between liquidators, receivers and their respective solicitors can be privileged, it is not necessarily always the case. Critical factors include the purpose of the communication in question and whether there is a sufficient commonality of interest between liquidators and receivers in relation to the communication’s subject matter.
Facts
Introduction
In most cases, the precondition for the appointment of a liquidator and the winding up of a company by a court is that a company is insolvent. However, in some cases courts will make these orders in the context of a shareholders dispute where there is a management deadlock or a breakdown in trust and confidence between shareholders. Additionally, a court may make these orders where there has been serious fraud or mismanagement in the conduct of a company’s affairs.
Relevant law
A party to arbitration or court proceedings in Australia can obtain a freezing order in advance of obtaining a domestic court judgment or arbitration award, in prescribed circumstances. In PT Bayan Resources TBK v BCBC Singapore Pte Ltd [2015]1 the High Court of Australia has confirmed that Australian courts have the same power to grant freezing orders prior to a judgment or award being obtained in respect of proceedings commenced outside of Australia, provided that judgment or award would be enforceable in Australia.
In a decision handed down on 11 February 2016, the High Court has confirmed that the State Supreme Courts have jurisdiction to grant relief to plaintiffs seeking to join insurers of insolvent or potentially insolvent defendants, and a declaration that the insurer is liable to indemnify the defendant.
Introduction
In the recent case of Queensland Mining Corporation Ltd v Butmall Pty Ltd (in liq), the Court held that the liquidators' relationship with a major creditor of the company in liquidation (Butmall) did not per se amount to a conflict of interest.
Butmall applied to have its liquidators removed as they were the auditors of its major creditor (QMC), against whom Butmall purported to have considerable counterclaims.
In March 2013, four portable gas turbines worth about AU$50m had been leased to Forge Group Power Pty Ltd (Forge) by GE International Inc (GE) as lessor. In February 2014 and March 2014 Forge was placed in administration and liquidation respectively.