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

Australian banks have historically relied on formal liquidation, voluntary administration and receivership processes available under the under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and under general law where informal restructurings have failed. There has been little appetite for exploring alternative methods to exit distressed situations by debt trading.

Your insurer goes bust – can you as an insured claim the reinsurance proceeds? An important decision in the NSW Supreme Court gives useful guidance on when a court will allow departures from the statutory scheme controlling the application of reinsurance proceeds (Amaca Pty Ltd v McGrath & Anor as liquidators of HIH Underwriting and Insurance (Australia) Pty Ltd [2011] NSWSC 90).

The insurer goes broke, and there are all these claimants at the door…

Overseas developments might have inspired mooted changes to create a debtor in possession model in Australia.

2021 began with a sense of optimism, but COVID-19 is continuing to wreak havoc on the Australian economy. The Commonwealth Bank of Australia is forecasting a 0.7% decline GDP in the September quarter and a likely rise in unemployment in July. New South Wales in particular, is expected to be hit very hard.

The Corporations Act 2001 sets out a regime for the order in which certain debts and claims are to be paid in priority to unsecured creditors.

That's straightforward enough for a liquidator, right?

Unfortunately, matters are not that straightforward. In effect, there are two priority regimes under the Act for the preferential payments of particular creditors, each of which applies to a different "fund", and we've observed this has led to some liquidators being unsure of how to proceed – or even worse, using funds they should not.

Get your 5 Minute Fix of major projects and construction news. This issue: significant security of payment reform on the agenda in WA, review of the BCIIP Act tabled, Infrastructure Victoria's report on the investment required to support automated and zero emissions vehicles, more on cladding and the High Court grants special leave to consider the availability of a quantum meruit claim as an alternative to contract damages upon repudiation of a building contract.

Review of security of payment reform for WA subcontractors released

Stakeholders have until 11 May 2018 to comment on a key part of the new ipso facto regime – the exceptions to the statutory stay on ipso facto clauses in certain categories of contracts and rights.

The new insolvency legislation commencing 1 July 2018 (Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Enterprise Incentives No. 2) Act 2017) introduces a statutory stay on the exercise of contractual rights arising by reason of certain insolvency trigger events.

The limitations of set-off in a liquidation scenario and the nature and effect of a security interest under the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) (PPSA) have been clarified, with significant ramifications for principals and financiers, who should now review their rights, following the WA Supreme Court's decision in Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd v Forge Group Power Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) (Receivers and Managers Appointed) [2017] WASC 152 (Clayton Utz acted for the successful receivers).

Key Points:

You can lead a director to the safe harbour, but you can't make him drink.

The Government's new approach to insolvency is long on rhetoric about risk taking and the need to remove the stigma of business failure.

However, it is short on detailed consideration of exactly why we have legal rules for corporate and personal insolvency.

Those rules aim to balance the interests of creditors against the need to encourage business start-ups.

Key Points:

Provided a liquidator is acting properly in conducting proceedings or realising assets, he or she is entitled to be paid fees in priority to a secured creditor.

The High Court has recently reaffirmed the principle that a liquidator is entitled to be paid his or her costs and expenses properly incurred in realising assets of a company in priority to a secured creditor. This is so even if the fund realised was derived from an action brought against a secured creditor (Stewart v Atco Controls Pty Ltd (in Liquidation) [2014] HCA 15).