Key Points:

A Senate Committee has said amendments to Australia's corporate insolvency laws should be considered to encourage and facilitate corporate turnarounds.

The Senate Economics References Committee called for a review of Australia's corporate insolvency laws to ensure they facilitate corporate turnarounds. One suggestion was for the implementation of certain features of the US' Chapter 11 regime into Australia's insolvency laws.

The arguments for changing the insolvency regime

In the decision of Divitkos, in the matter of ExDVD Pty Ltd (in liq) [2014] FCA 696, White J may have created a new class of equitable subrogation by allowing a secured creditor to prove in a liquidation as a priority creditor in respect of amounts paid to employees under s433 of the Corporations Act.

FACTS

​As New Zealand inches sloth-like toward a more regulated regime through the Insolvency Practitioners Bill, introduced in April 2010 and yet to have its third reading, Australian court decisions may become more relevant here.

After regulation, our two systems will still be different but less so than they are now, and already Australia provides a pointer to some of the issues which may arise here.

With that in mind, we have identified the top six insolvency law developments in Australia as we see them.

In brief

The recent decision of Divitkos, In the matter of Ex DVD Pty Ltd (In liquidation) has paved the way for secured creditors who pay employee entitlements out of secured assets to receive a priority for that payment from preference claims recovered in a subsequent liquidation.

Summary

The statutory demand is one of the most frequently used (and misused) tools utilized by companies and other persons to obtain payment of debts owed to them by a company. Service of a statutory demand can be the first step towards placing insolvent companies into liquidation.

The consequences for a company that does not respond to the service of a statutory demand can be severe.

One of those consequences is that the company may find itself in the position where it is required to prove solvency before a court, in order to avoid a winding up.

The Financial System Inquiry was formed on 20 November 2013 by our Federal Treasurer to examine how our financial system could be positioned to best meet Australia’s evolving needs and support economic growth. The Inquiry received over 280 first round submissions and released it’s Interim Report earlier this week. ^[1] 

Last Friday, the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia handed down its decision in ASIC’s case seeking the removal and replacement of the liquidators of the Walton Constructions group, on the grounds of a perceived lack of independence.

Key Points:

A forbearance arrangement is a useful instrument to ensure that both the lender and the customer are aligned on the proposed turnaround or workout.

In the decision Equititrust Limited (In Liq) (Receiver Appointed) (Receivers and Managers Appointed) in its capacity as responsible entity of the Equititrust Income Fund v Equititrust Limited (In Liq) (Receiver Appointed) (Receivers and Managers Appointed) in its own capacity [2014] FCA 692,the Federal Court of Australia considered an application to set aside or stay indefinitely liquidator examinations of former auditors under s596B of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

Liquidators are commonly appointed to a company where, prior to liquidation the company was a trustee of a trust. Often when the liquidators are appointed, the company has ceased to be the trustee and a replacement trustee has not been appointed.

In these circumstances, the company in liquidation is a bare trustee in relation to the trust assets and the liquidator will assume this role until a replacement trustee is appointed. Often a replacement trustee is not appointed.

Does the liquidator as bare trustee have a power to sell trust assets?