Liquidators accepting a new appointment will have to think carefully if there's a possibility of disclaiming onerous property as part of that appointment.

Restructuring and insolvency professionals are showing real ingenuity when restructuring insolvent businesses, and landlords need to keep up.

Economic downturns create opportunities for the restructuring or acquisition of challenged assets, and we anticipate increased activity in this space in 2023. The indicators pointing in that direction are:

Welcome to the 2023 edition of "From Red to Black", our annual review of significant developments and topical issues in the Australian restructuring and insolvency market.

In this week’s TGIF, we consider an appeal against the making of a pooling order in the Full Federal Court decision ofMcMillan Investment Holdings Pty Ltd v Morgan [2023] FCAFC 9 and examine the challenges liquidators face in convincing a court to grant such an order.

Key takeaways

On 8 February 2023, the High Court of Australia (being Australia’s highest court) simultaneously handed down two highly anticipated insolvency law decisions:

This week's issue has a strong ESG focus. We cover the Senate Committee's report into the government's Bill to overhaul the existing 'safeguard' mechanism, the outcomes of the ACCC's greenwashing sweep and the ACCC's enforcement priorities for 2023/24. On the financial services front we provide an update on the status of the proposed FAR (which would expand on and replace the existing BEAR). We also provide an update on the progress of measures to further 'modernise' Corporations Act requirements and more…

In Kennedy Civil Contracting Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) v Richard Crookes Constructing Pty Ltd v Richard Crookes Construction Pty Ltd; In the matter of Kennedy Civil Contracting Pty Ltd [2023] NSWSC 99, the NSW Supreme Court considered whether a company on the brink of liquidation can take action to enforce a payment claim under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW) (SOP Act).

Bryant v Badenoch Integrated Logging Pty Ltd [2023] HCA 2

The High Court has unanimously dismissed an appeal against the Full Court decision in Badenoch Integrated Logging Pty Ltd v Bryant, in the matter of Gunns Limited (in liq) (receivers and managers appointed) [2021] FCAFC 64, finding that the “peak indebtedness rule” does not form part of s 588FA(3) of the Corporations Act and providing guidance as to how to approach the analysis required under that section.

Background

In the much-anticipated decision of Bryant v Badenoch Integrated Logging Pty Ltd [2023] HCA 2 (Badenoch (HCA)), the High Court of Australia (the HCA) has now confirmed that the peak indebtedness rule may not be used when assessing the quantum of an unfair preference claim arising from a continuing business relationship.

When a company becomes financially distressed, directors are often required to act quickly and decisively. However, directors may at the same time find themselves held back by the requirements of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the “Corporations Act”) or their company constitution.