Small business restructurings (SBR), which allow companies with less than $1 million in liabilities (other than employee entitlements) to restructure their unsecured debts, are increasing in popularity. SBRs now amount to about 25 per cent of all monthly company insolvencies, and outnumber voluntary administrations.

In this article, from knowledge gained in advising small business restructuring practitioners, and from wider industry commentary, we discuss some of the good, and not so good, aspects of the SBR regime.

The good

After a couple of years where uptake was slow, the small business restructuring (SBR) regime, which came into effect 1 January 2021, has well and truly cemented itself as the favoured debt restructuring process for companies with less than $1 million in liabilities (other than employee entitlements). There are now more SBRs per month than voluntary administrations, and represent around 25 per cent of all new corporate insolvencies.

Did you know that bankruptcy trustees are now liable for capital gains tax (CGT) on the sale of real property? Section 254 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth) imposes specific obligations on trustees and agents, covering income, profits, and gains of a capital nature in their representative capacity. This has recently taken on new importance for bankruptcy trustees.

What has changed?

This week’s TGIF considers a recent Federal Court of Australia decision (Connelly (liquidator) v Papadopoulos, in the matter of TSK QLD Pty Ltd (in liq) [2024] FCA 888). In the case, it was determined that a restructuring adviser who engineered an asset-stripping scheme may be found liable for the full value of the loss arising out of the scheme.

Key Takeaways

Significant emerging factors and trends are increasing pressure on directors. After several years of relative stasis induced by the pandemic (when many businesses were supported by various government initiatives and bank flexibility, whilst also enjoying ATO and creditor patience), there is a distinct whiff of change in the air. This year, we might see a move back to a more ‘normal’, pre-COVID setting. If so, there will be pressures for some, and opportunity for others.

In this week’s TGIF, we examine the recent case of Re Eliana Construction and Developing Group Pty Ltd [2023] VSC 639 which considers guarantor subrogation rights in insolvency scenarios.

Key takeaways

Introduction

In a recent case, the early restructuring was proven as a useful tool for practitioners in circumstances where there is value in moving quickly to affect the restructure prior to the first meeting of creditors.

Case Analysis: Re Richstone Plumbing Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) [2023] VSC 112

Facts

Richstone Group was a large plumbing contractor, who, due to matters including the economic conditions of the construction industry, earlier this year sought to implement a restructure to continue trading.

In a decision handed down by Downes J on 4 July 2024, the Federal Court of Australia provided guidance on the treatment of capital gains in bankruptcy, and endorsed the approach that has been taken by the ATO: Robson as trustee for the bankrupt estate of Lanning v Commissioner of Taxation [2024] FCA 720 (Decision).

Key takeaways

In my December 2022 article, I predicted that when insolvencies started to surge in the Australian economy, the worst casualties would likely be in construction.¹ It’s taken a while for my predicted post-COVID day of reckoning to arrive in Australia. But it is here.