Prior to March 2017, any right to sue that comprised an asset of a bankrupt’s estate could only be litigated by the trustee of the bankrupt. The inability of a trustee to assign a bankrupt’s cause of action resulted in many such actions not being litigated due to factors such as a lack of resources. This position changed through the insertion into the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) in Schedule 2 of the Insolvency Practice Schedule (Bankruptcy), which expressly permits a trustee to assign to a third party any right to sue that is held by of a bankrupt estate (see section 100-5).

The Limitations Act 1969 (NSW) (Limitations Act) establishes time limits within which plaintiffs must commence civil proceedings, including for the recovery of a debt. A failure to bring a claim within the relevant time period results in the claim lapsing, and the creditor losing its rights to enforce its debt. Accordingly, it is critical that creditors understand how the law restricts their ability to collect debts and any exceptions that they may rely upon as the limitation date approaches.

Debtor in possession financing in the US has continued to rise, particularly in the context of retail insolvencies. In Australia, we have seen a number of high profile retail collapses in recent years. Can DIP financing solve the woes of struggling retailers in Australia?

It is fair to say that my initial reading of the Building Industry Fairness (Security of Payment) Act 2017 (BIFA) a little over 12 months ago left me shocked in terms of the sheer scale and magnitude of the reforms and changes proposed to be imposed on the industry.

While much attention earlier this year was paid to the introduction of the safe harbour for directors, the second element in Australia's major reforms to insolvency laws ‒ the moratorium on the enforcement of ipso facto clauses (including self-executing clauses) ‒ is now in effect.

Some 25 years after Harmer promised a faster, more efficient and commercial approach for dealing with failed and failing companies, Australia's highest court has this morning confirmed that creditors can contractually bind a company and all stakeholders to a moratorium extension via a properly formed holding DOCA (Mighty River International Limited v Hughes [2018] HCA 38; Clayton Utz acted for the successful Deed Administrators of Mesa Minerals Limited).

Although we have been operating under the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) (PPSA) for a number of years, this area of law continues to generate disputes because of the complexity of the legislative regime and the ramifications of being an unsecured creditor of an insolvent entity.

Changes to Singapore's statutory regime for schemes of arrangement, which came into effect in May 2017, are aimed at placing Singapore on the map as an international debt restructuring hub.

Mesa Minerals Ltd was placed into voluntary administration on 13 July 2016 with a holding deed of company amendment (‘DOCA’) entered into on 3 November 2016. The DOCA’s stated objective was to provide sufficient time for the Administrators to conduct further investigations into the course of action in the best interests of the creditors. Clause 8 of the DOCA stated that there was no property available for distribution to creditors.

What you need to know

The High Court yesterday affirmed the flexibility of the purposes for Deeds of Company Arrangement (DOCA). In its reasoning, the Court placed very few limits on the use of what are commonly called "holding" DOCAs. It confirmed that a holding DOCA can be validly accepted by creditors to allow more time for an administrator to investigate the future options for an insolvent company.