The Court’s decision in Barokes Pty Ltd (in liq) [2022] VSC 642 is important because, for the first time in Australia, a Court has granted a creditor leave to bring a derivative action in the name of a company in liquidation against its liquidators. This case opens another significant gateway for creditors to seek redress for their losses.
The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services (the Committee) has commenced an inquiry into the “effectiveness of Australia’s corporate insolvency laws in protecting and maximising value for the benefit of all interested parties and the economy”.[1]
Major restructuring destinations each provide distinct mechanisms for rehabilitating companies in distress. Our table sets out the similarities and differences in the processes available in Australia, England & Wales, Hong Kong, Singapore, and the USA.
Object of schemes of arrangement
This table provides a high level overview of the restructuring and insolvency processes available in Australia, comparing their purposes, effects, advantages and disadvantages.
Australia has a moratorium on the reliance upon ipso facto on insolvency (insolvency termination clauses in contracts which allow counter parties to terminate due to the fact of insolvency). It is complex and there are numerous carve-outs as outlined in the chapter.
"Ipso facto" clauses
Object
Liquidation involves the collection of the company's assets, the realisation of those assets and the distribution of the proceeds of their sale to the company's creditors.
Process of appointing liquidator
Introduction
Informal workout agreements can renegotiate, delay, reduce or waive pre-existing debts owed by a company. For the debtor company, the main purpose of entering into an informal workout is to obtain agreements from its creditors to relinquish rights and refrain from enforcing certain debt covenants. The following are some commonly used informal workout mechanisms:
This week’s TGIF examines the decision in Re Farley Bay (in liq) [2022] VSC 604, where an insolvency proceeding was successfully transferred to the Federal Circuit and Family Court despite the Supreme Court of Victoria considering the Applicant’s ultimate proprietary claims to be ‘weak’.
Key takeaways
This is an important update in the Australian corporate and insolvency law context because, in BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA and others [2022] UKSC 25, the UK Supreme Court (being the UK’s highest court) confirmed the existence of a duty owed by directors to creditors in certain circumstances (creditor duty). Under the common law and equity (together, general law), there is a gateway to applicability of the creditor duty in Australia.