The Western Australian Court of Appeal has ruled that giving security to a Bank does not destroy mutuality for the purposes of statutory set-off if the security allows the debtor to use assets to pay its debts in the ordinary course of business.

If you have guaranteed the debts of a person or entity that is in financial distress, you should take legal advice as soon as possible. Whatever you do, do not panic and make a rash decision such as declaring bankruptcy, winding up your business or selling your family home. The creditor seeking to enforce the guarantee may be more amenable to compromise than you think, particularly given the risks that creditors often face when they seek to enforce guarantees.

Several decisions handed down in the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) (PPSA) space have emphasised the importance of registering security interests within the legislative timeframes and also examined the discretionary factors courts will consider in their deliberations over whether extensions of time for registration of security interests should be granted.

The operation of section 133 

The law currently provides an easy out for trustees of a bankrupt, specifically in respect of real property  

Section 133 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) (the Act) provides an option for the trustee in bankruptcy to disclaim real property where it is burdened by onerous covenants. This disclaimer is often exercised where the amount owed in the form of a mortgage and further caveats or covenants registered on title of the real property exceeds the value of the property.  

Some of the most far-reaching Australian insolvency law changes are taking effect. These new laws will restrict the enforceability of a whole class of common clauses in contracts –so called 'ipso facto' clauses.

In this edition of FINSights, we explore what these changes mean for financiers, and outline key tips and issues they should consider as we move forward into the new regime.

What are ipso facto clauses?

Introduction

The restructuring, distressed and debt market in Australia continues to evolve. We have a competitive debt market that constantly seeks out that next transaction. We have an environment of innovation with restructuring professionals seeking to push the boundaries of what may be possible within the current legislative framework, and we have changes to that framework with the introduction of Safe Harbour as a defence to insolvent trading and ipso facto reform which seeks to lock in contracts post-insolvency.

This week’s TGIF considers Gogetta Equipment Funding Pty Ltd v Mark & Liz Pty Ltd [2018] VSC 91, which examined a priority contest between competing equitable interests in property.

What happened?

As the volume of high-profile bankruptcies continues to climb, companies are now in the process of seeking to amend and re-negotiate their credit agreements, or finding new sources of financing in efforts to avoid bankruptcy.

Capital intensive businesses often raise capital from multiple sources, including loans from senior and subordinated lenders and hybrid financing – most typically loans accompanied by warrants – from so-called mezzanine lenders. A borrower’s cost of funds with respect to each depends on the quantum of risk associated with the particular credit. Senior lenders enjoy priority in payment and recourse to discernible collateral and are able to offer lower interest rates and lower fees.