The use of pre-packs or pre-positioned asset sales in Australia has traditionally been limited. This is a result of impediments to such transactions under the Australian legislative insolvency regime.

The interplay of these impeding factors means that there are few true pre-pack transactions in Australia. However, significant reform to the Australian insolvency regime is expected to be implemented in 2017. We wrote about the main aspects of that reform in our last article, `Australian insolvency law reforms aim to increase business restructuring opportunities'

On 22 May 2020, Justice Black of the Supreme Court of NSW issued judgment In the matter of Wollongong Coal Limited and In the matter of Jindal Steel & Power (Australia) Pty Ltd [2020] NSWSC 614. The judgment sets out his Honour’s reasoning for granting the orders sought in a largely unprecedented application to effectively ‘re-enliven’ two schemes of arrangement which automatically terminated prior to being completed.

The Australian government is working to significantly reform Australia’s current insolvency laws by mid-2017.

The reforms are intended to achieve greater likelihood of business preservation by introducing the flexibility to achieve real turnaround of businesses in crisis.

The proposed changes include:

The Australian Government has passed the "Coronavirus Economic Response Package Omnibus Bill 2020". The new legislation was announced on Sunday 22 March 2020 and was fast tracked through parliament as part of the Australian Government's response to the economic impact of COVID-19.

In Berryman v Zurich Australia Ltd [2016] WASC 196, the Supreme Court of Western Australia held a bankrupt, Berryman, was able to maintain legal action in his own name, claiming TPD insurance benefits from Zurich.

The Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) relevantly provides:

As the name suggests, the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency 1997 (Model Law) seeks to address complexities caused where insolvencies cross borders, while leaving substantive insolvency laws of each country largely unaltered. However, as jurisdictions continue to adopt and interpret the Model Law, inconsistencies in its application are coming to light.

In Austcorp Project Number 20 Pty Ltd v The Trust Co (PTAL) Limited, in the matter of Bellpac Pty Limited (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (in liq) [2015] FCA 850, the Federal Court of Australia had to determine whether to dismiss the proceedings for failure to comply with previous orders for security for costs, or vary those orders for security. The basis upon which the Court made the orders for security in the first place is set out in Austcorp Project Number 20 Pty Ltd v LM Investment Management Ltd [2014] FCA 1371, and was canvassed in an ear

In brief...

The use of creditors’ schemes of arrangement is on the rise in Australia. Along the way the Australian courts have made valuable contributions to international scheme jurisprudence. In this article we look at some of these contributions and then explore how Australian law might be further developed to remain a leading jurisdiction for creditors’ schemes.

Advantages of schemes as a restructuring tool

SFC released consultation conclusions on supervisory assistance. The Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) released consultation conclusions on proposed amendments to the Securities and Futures Ordinance (SFO). The amendments would provide assistance to regulators outside of Hong Kong upon request by making inquiries and obtaining certain records and documents from licensed corporations or their related corporations. The proposed supervisory assistance will be subject to both existing and new legislative safeguards.

An important decision[1] has been handed down by the High Court of Australia which relates to the order of payment of statutorily preferred debts out of trust property held by an insolvent corporate trustee.