It is anticipated that, by the middle of the year, Australia will see the most significant reform to the corporate and personal insolvency environment in two decades. The reforms, which appear likely to be supported by all sides of government, are designed to promote business preservation and allow greater flexibility in order to ‘turnaround’ distressed companies.

This article forms part of our litigation funding series and discusses a key decision that has the potential to significantly support the due diligence efforts of litigation funders in external administration contexts.

In the course of antecedent transaction proceedings, particularly for unfair preferences, arguably the most contentious and critical question to be determined is the date of insolvency. Although that question predominantly involves an accounting exercise, it also includes an assessment of the commercial, financial and trading realities of the relevant company and a consideration of legal principles.

If an international airline that is a member of the International Air Transport Association (“IATA”) goes into insolvent external administration under the Australian Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the “Act”), will the IATA Clearing House Regulations (effective January 1, 2006) (the “CH Regulations”) continue to govern the relationship between IATA, the insolvent airline, and the other members of IATA? A recent judgment of Australia’s High Court clarifies these issues.

As part of its economic response to the COVID-19 pandemic, yesterday the Government passed a ‘temporary safe harbour’ insolvency measure^[1].

On 28 March 2017, the Turnbull Government released draft legislation which would implement wide-ranging reforms to Australia’s corporate restructuring laws. The draft legislation focuses on reforms to the insolvent trading prohibition (Safe Harbour) and introducing a new stay on enforcing “ipso facto” clauses during certain restructuring procedures (Ipso Facto).

In a decision handed down earlier today, in Willmott Growers Group Inc v Willmott Forests Limited (Receivers and Managers appointed) (in liquidation) [2013] HCA 51,  the majority of the High Court upheld the Victorian Court of Appeal’s conclusion that the liquidators of an insolvent landlord can disclaim a lease, thereby extinguishing the tenant’s leasehold interest.

The perception of Australia as being a relatively “risky” place to sit on a Board has generally focused on the insolvent trading prohibition in section 588G of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and how it interacts with general directors’ duties.^[1]

The High Court this afternoon unanimously dismissed Clive Palmer and Ian Ferguson's challenge to the constitutional validity of section 596A of the Corporations Act.

This means that a liquidator's power to publicly examine and compel the production of documents remains intact and removes any doubt about the powers of liquidators under section 596A of the Corporations Act.

Arguments made by Clive Palmer and Ian Ferguson

Summary