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.

In continuation of Reserve Bank of India’s (RBI) efforts to ease financial stress caused by the Covid-19 pandemic, the RBI issued the circular on the Resolution Framework for Covid-19 Related Stress dated 6 August 2020 (August 6 Circular). The August 6 Circular creates a limited time window for certain categories of borrowers affected by Covid-19 pandemic related business disruption to be allowed resolution plans in the nature of restructuring while permitting the borrower accounts to retain their status as ‘standard’.

As we discussed in our July newsletter, the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (CIGA 2020) has introduced a new Restructuring Plan, which is similar to existing Schemes of Arrangement. In essence a Court can sanction a restructuring plan which binds a dissenting class   of creditors, if that class would be in no worse a position than the most likely alternative.

WHO WILL ADVOCATE FOR THE "HUMBLE" FLOATING CHARGE-HOLDER?[1]

Introduction

What does the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (CIGA) do?

CIGA introduces various changes to various provisions of the Insolvency Act 1986 and the Companies Act 2006.

Some of these changes are designed to be permanent changes to the insolvency landscape (largely implementing proposals for insolvency law reform introduced in 2018) – for example, the introduction of a moratorium, a ban on termination provisions (also known as ipso facto clauses) and a new pre-insolvency rescue and restructuring regime.

Companies with an international footprint will need to ensure that their tax residence (and other taxable presence) is not affected by travel restrictions imposed in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. HMRC has published guidance on these issues, which is somewhat helpful if less definitive than the approach of a number of other jurisdictions. Careful thought will be needed where senior executives/management are unable to travel, and so are required to carry on their role or participate in key management or commercial decision-making in a different jurisdiction from usual.