Property claims, especially lien claims, are common in the current environment of supply chain disruption and delay. Most contractual, statutory and common law lien claims, including where the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) is involved, will turn on timing, scope and quantum arguments. In this article, we outline the usual levers in a lien dispute from the debtor and creditor perspectives and make some suggestions for getting to a commercial resolution.
Companies post-restructuring are not subject to the rules protecting creditors of insolvent companies in section 588FL of the Corporations Act 2001.
Payment of priority creditors under section 561 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) is an activity conventionally performed by liquidators, albeit the section is silent as to the holder of the relevant payment obligation. The Federal Court of Australia has recently confirmed that distributions to priority (employee) creditors are not the exclusive purview of liquidators (where receivers are appointed contemporaneously); receivers may exercise the powers contained in section 561 to distribute certain funds to such priority creditors.
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.
With the enactment of the ipso factoreform in September this year (which commences operation on 1 July 2018), it is the genuine hope of many insolvency practitioners and others in the market that voluntary administration will become a less value-destructive and, therefore, a more useful tool for company restructures.
The decision in In the matter of Independent Contractor Services (Aust) could mean more reliance upon fair entitlements guarantee funding provided by the Commonwealth in relation to the liquidation of trading trusts.
Key Points:
These three cases illustrate that strict compliance with legislative requirements continues to be imperative when serving statutory demands.
Despite what appears to be a fairly straightforward legislative regime, creditors' statutory demands appear to generate an entirely disproportionate volume of litigation in the courts. The drastic consequences of failing to comply with a creditor's statutory demand warrant very strict compliance by creditors with the technical requirements of the regime.
Six month extensions to convening periods should not be seen as a fait accompli, particularly if the administrator's application is opposed.
There is a commonly held belief that courts will readily grant an administrator's application for an extension to the convening period. This might have been true once, but it is fast turning into an urban myth, judging by two recent decisions in the Federal Court.
Receivers and employees are the greatest losers from a recent chain of court cases. Unless overturned on appeal or by legislation, the cases impose financial burdens on employees and administrative burdens on receivers.
At stake are employees' accrued leave entitlements and the statutory requirement to pay them once a company enters external administration. Employees of companies in receivership can lose entitlements they would ordinarily receive during liquidation depending entirely on the time at which a company enters administration or liquidation.
On 25 January 2010, the United States Bankruptcy Court handed down its much anticipated decision in relation to an action brought in that court by two Lehman Brothers entities (the Lehman entities) against BNY Corporate Trustee Services Limited (BNY) (the US Decision).