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.

This week’s TGIF considers the process that a liquidator may follow when a director fails to attend at an examination. It considers the appeal in Mensink v Parbery [2018] FCAFC 101, in which the Court set out the relevant differences between arrest warrants issued to require a director to attend an examination, and arrest warrants to answer charges for contempt.

What happened?

How far do liquidators’ powers to demand documents for public examinations extend? Which documents can they request and from whom can they request them?

In this week’s TGIF, we consider these questions in the context of the recent case of Re Cathro [2018] FCA 1138.

BACKGROUND

Section 37A can be used by future, contingent and prospective creditors to recover assets, meaning the transferor need not be indebted at the time of the transfer.

Recovering assets from a debtor is usually done via the recovery provisions in the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) or theBankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth), but there is another option, at least in New South Wales, which offers creditors, insolvency practitioners and any prejudiced parties a useful alternative. A recent case demonstrates its advantages (Lardis v Lakis [2018] NSWCA 113; Clayton Utz acted for the successful creditor).