The Federal Court of Australia (Court) has handed down the first reported decision on the ipso facto stay provisions contained in the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act).

The new year has seen a rapid pace being set in terms of anticipated and actual legislative, regulatory and common law changes across Australia’s restructuring and insolvency regimes. The federal government’s inquiry into restructuring and bankruptcy laws is ongoing against a backdrop of sustained monetary policy interventions.

What is now known as the ‘ipso facto regime’ was introduced by the Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Enterprise Incentives No. 2) Act 2017 in September 2017, which inserted a number of provisions that provided for a stay on the exercise of certain ipso facto contractual rights in the context of corporate restructuring and insolvency procedures.

What is an ipso facto clause?

The decisions in Metal Manufactures Pty Limited v Morton [2023] HCA 1 and Bryant v Badenoch Integrated Logging Pty Ltd [2023] HCA 2 have been viewed as conflicting for liquidators. In this week’s TGIF, we examine these proceedings and why the decisions benefit both liquidators and creditors.

Key takeaways

Liquidators and creditors should be aware of the High Court's analysis of the limits of set-off under s 553C of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

A Win for Subcontractors and Suppliers

When a construction company goes broke, the subcontractors and suppliers often receive letters from the liquidator demanding repayment of so-called ‘unfair preferences’.

When an ongoing business relationship has existed between the creditor company and the company in liquidation, liquidators have historically worked out the amount of the ‘unfair preference’ on a ‘running account’ basis by reference to the so-called ‘peak indebtedness principle’. For example, if the following transactions took place:

The High Court’s recent decision in Bryant & Ors v. Badenoch Integrated Logging Pty Ltd [2023] HCA 2 (Gunns case) has important implications for liquidators and companies, as it has removed liquidators’ unfair advantage in unfair preference cases.

This article analyses the decision of Ball J in Kennedy Civil Contracting Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) (KCC) v Richard Crookes Construction Pty Ltd (RCC); in the matter of Kennedy Civil Contracting Pty Ltd [2023] NSWSC 99 and considers the ramifications for the scope of section 32B of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW) (SOP Act).

Key Points:

If you operate a business, it is important to be aware of what can happen if you receive a payment from a customer who subsequently goes into bankruptcy or liquidation, and that payment is found to be an unfair preference payment. Payments that are unfair preferences can be ‘clawed back’ by a liquidator or bankruptcy trustee.

Although the term ‘unfair preference’ is commonly referred to when a company goes into liquidation, the concept of an ‘unfair preference payment’ is not commonly understood. So, what is does ‘unfair preference’ mean and what you should you be aware of?