What you need to know

The High Court has decided not to hear an appeal about the ability of the Linc Energy Limited (Linc Energy) liquidators to disclaim property of the company - this means the liquidators could disclaim that property, including any obligations under the specific environmental protection order (EPO) issued under Queensland's environmental legislation. The current position stands that the disclaimer notice had the effect of avoiding obligations of both the company and its liquidators under the EPO.

What you need to know

The Court of Appeal - Supreme Court of Western Australia has confirmed that the existence of a general security interest does not of itself destroy mutuality between a company in liquidation and its creditors and as a consequence section 553C of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act) can apply to allow a creditor to set-off its debts against amounts owed to the company in liquidation.1

In a comprehensive unanimous decision, the Court of Appeal confirmed the following propositions:

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.

Introduction

The concept of winding up does not exclusively apply to insolvent companies. Solvent companies can also be wound up, on the initiation of the company’s directors and shareholders (for example, as part of a corporate reconstruction or to close down non-operating or redundant entities).

An overview of the two key procedures to effect the dissolution of a solvent Australian company, being Members’ Voluntary Liquidation and Deregistration, is set out below.

OVERVIEW OF AUSTRALIAN CORPORATE INSOLVENCY REGIMES

Restructuring & Insolvency

Restructuring & Insolvency | i

Overview of Australian Corporate Insolvency Regimes

This document provides a summary of the most common Australian formal corporate insolvency regimes, namely:

voluntary administration;

receivership; and winding up.

It also covers creditors' schemes of arrangement which are increasingly being used in larger restructurings.

Contracts, agreements, arrangements and rights to which the stay on enforcing ipso facto clauses does not apply; final Regulations and Declaration published

The reform and its progress

Proposed exceptions to the stay on enforcing ipso facto clauses now published; public consultation open

The reform

From 1 July 2018, the moratorium on reliance by solvent counterparties on “ipso facto” clauses in voluntary administration, certain receiverships and creditors schemes of arrangement will come into effect (unless it is proclaimed to commence earlier, which is not presently expected).

1. Introduction

Under Hong Kong law, a company shall be deemed to be unable to pay its debts if a creditor, to whom the company is indebted of at least HKD 10,000 (around USD 1,290), has served on the company a demand requiring the company to pay and the company has not done so within three weeks.

In brief

The Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act (the IRDA) commenced on 30 July 2020. The IRDA is an omnibus legislation that consolidates Singapore's personal insolvency, corporate insolvency and debt restructuring laws into a single legislation. The IRDA will replace the Bankruptcy Act and the corporate insolvency and restructuring provisions in the Companies Act, each of which will be repealed. The IRDA also introduces new changes to the insolvency framework in Singapore.

Key changes to Singapore insolvency framework

Earlier in March and prior to Covid-19 taking over both the world and the legal world, Mr Justice Snowden handed down his judgment in Bilta (UK) Limited (in liquidation) et ors v (1) Natwest Markets PLC and (2) Mercuria Energy Europe Trading Limited [2020] EWHC 546 (Ch) in which he found both RBS (as defined below) and RBS SEEL (also as defined below) liable for dishonest assistance and knowingly being a party to fraudulent trading. As demonstrated below, the judgment contains a number of cautionary lessons for both banks and traders alike.