The Insolvency Practice Schedule (Corporations) (Practice Schedule) was introduced in 2015 via the Insolvency Law Reform Bill 2015. The Practice Schedule was introduced together with the Insolvency Practice Schedule (Bankruptcy) with the intention of providing specific rules to aid in the handling of personal bankruptcies and corporate external administration. 

On 17 February 2023, Justice Ball of the New South Wales Supreme Court handed down his decision in Kennedy Civil Contracting Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) v Richard Crookes Construction Pty Ltd; In the matter of Kennedy Civil Contracting Pty Ltd [2023] NSWSC 99.

Facts

In Re Brew Still Pty Ltd (admin apptd)[2023] NSWSC 256, Black J of the New South Wales Supreme Court declined an application for an adjournment of one month brought by the voluntary administrator appointed to Brew Still Pty Ltd three days prior to the hearing of the winding up application.

Presently, there is a lot of talk about insolvency and the legal test for corporate insolvency. In simple terms, insolvency or bankruptcy means a company or an individual cannot pay its debts when they are due. In Australia, bankruptcy refers to individuals, and insolvency refers to a company.

In this article, we will focus on corporate insolvency. What is the legal test for solvency? When are you insolvent vs having a short-term liquidity problem? What is the presumption of insolvency, and how can you rebut the presumption and prove solvency?

The law can be slow to adapt to emerging technologies such as cryptocurrency. However, with a thorough knowledge of existing legal avenues, adaptation is not always necessary. Macpherson Kelley recently acted in a case that demonstrates how trustees in bankruptcy can use existing tools at their disposal to investigate, and ultimately recover, cryptocurrency held by bankrupts.

Identifying and locating cryptocurrency

If a trustee becomes aware that a bankrupt has owned or traded in cryptocurrency assets, the trustee will normally:

Industry participants who are close watchers of the different States’ and Territories’ security of payment regimes may have noticed a divergence between NSW and Victorian security of payment law in relation to failing corporate claimants. A recent NSW case regarding a head contractor’s unsuccessful challenge to the continuation of a deed of company arrangement may perpetuate a divergence in security of payment law in the context of insolvency.

Background – NSW law

A recent decision of the NSW Supreme Court examines whether a 'hopelessly insolvent' subcontractor that executes a holding DOCA to enforce payment claims served on head contractor under the NSW security of payment legislation.

Key takeouts

The introduction of the ‘ipso facto regime’ in 2018 had a widespread impact on the drafting and application of termination provisions in commercial contracts, casting doubt on the longstanding practice of allowing a right to terminate a contract when another party to the contract becomes insolvent.

This week’s TGIF concerns Kennedy Civil Contracting Pty Ltd (Admins Appt) v Richard Crookes Construction Pty Ltd [2023] NSWSC 99, in which the New South Wales Supreme Court determined that an insolvent company’s creditors could properly make a DOCA to maintain the right under security of payment legislation to recover amounts that would have been lost on entry into liquidation.

Key takeaways

In Short

The Situation: Historically, creditors pursued by liquidators under the unfair preference regime could rely on a statutory set-off as a defence to the claim, reducing or eliminating their liability to repay what would otherwise be preference payments, on the basis that the liability for the unfair preference payment formed part of a running account between the creditor and the company.