As part of the Federal Government’s suite of reforms to insolvency laws in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, directors of insolvent companies with total debts not exceeding $1 million are eligible to appoint a Small Business Restructuring Practitioner (SBRP).

This new regime allows directors of eligible companies to retain control of their business while working alongside an SBRP to develop a proposed restructuring plan for approval by the company’s creditors.

In brief On 1 January 2021, the Federal Government's post-COVID small business restructuring reform package1 came into effect.

It is possible for a trustee in bankruptcy to make a claim to property held by a bankrupt on trust. For example, by lodging a caveat over a home that is held on trust.

A trustee in bankruptcy may be able to make a claim, relying on the bankrupt’s right of indemnity as trustee of the trust. This is because the bankrupt’s right of indemnity, as trustee, is itself property that vests in the trustee in bankruptcy under the Bankruptcy Act 1966.

Explaining a trustee’s right of indemnity

In this issue, we consider Qantas’ recent Full Federal Court win in its JobKeeper stoush with the union, and the interpretation of who is entitled to the COVID-19 cash flow boosts following on from the AAT’s decision in Slatter Building Group Pty Ltd and Commissioner of Taxation (Taxation) [2021] AATA 456. We also provide an update on the latest appeals, ATO guidance and rulings.

Buckle up, Qantas’ fight over JobKeeper entitlements isn’t over yet

Bankruptcy is one option for dealing with insolvency. Insolvency is the inability for an individual, or company, to pay their debts as and when they fall due. Although bankruptcy can provide bankrupts with relief from the majority of their debts, and essentially allow them to make a fresh start, there are also downsides. This article explores the consequences of declaring bankruptcy for both the bankrupt and their business.

The ramifications of bankruptcy are laid out in the following table:

This week’s TGIF considers an application to the Federal Court for the private hearing of a public examination where separate criminal proceedings were also on foot.

Key takeaways

This article was originally published in the Australian Restructuring, Insolvency & Turnaround Association Journal (Volume 32 #01 2020)

The first of March marked the second anniversary of the changes to the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act) permitting an external administrator to assign rights to sue. The Australian Government proposed the reform in the hope that the ‘sale of rights of action may enable the value in such rights to be realised’[1].

In Re Cullen Group,[1] the Supreme Court of Queensland considered the determination of a preliminary question regarding the insolvency of Cullen Group Australia Pty Ltd (Cullen Group), which was placed into liquidation approximately four years prior to the hearing date.

In Krejci, in the matter of Union Standard International Group Pty Ltd,[1] the Federal Court provides an example of the ways in which section 90-15 of the Insolvency Practice Schedule

This week’s TGIF looks at a recent decision of the Victorian Supreme Court, where a winding up application was adjourned to allow the debtor company to pursue restructuring under the recently introduced small business restructuring reforms.

Key takeaways