Debtor in possession financing in the US has continued to rise, particularly in the context of retail insolvencies. In Australia, we have seen a number of high profile retail collapses in recent years. Can DIP financing solve the woes of struggling retailers in Australia?

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.

The two limbs of the defence to an unfair preference claim under section 588FG(1)(b) and (2)(b) of the Corporations Act have separate work to do.

In a useful decision for liquidators and the insolvency industry, the WA Court of Appeal has clarified the nature of the tests creditors need to satisfy to maintain a defence to a liquidator's unfair preference claim in section 588FG(1)(b) or (2)(b) of the Corporations Act (White & Templeton v ACN 153 152 731 Pty Ltd (in liq) & Anor [2018] WASCA 119). 

Section 37A can be used by future, contingent and prospective creditors to recover assets, meaning the transferor need not be indebted at the time of the transfer.

Recovering assets from a debtor is usually done via the recovery provisions in the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) or theBankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth), but there is another option, at least in New South Wales, which offers creditors, insolvency practitioners and any prejudiced parties a useful alternative. A recent case demonstrates its advantages (Lardis v Lakis [2018] NSWCA 113; Clayton Utz acted for the successful creditor).

The new ipso facto regime applies to all contracts to be entered into on or after 1 July 2018. Businesses should now be carefully reviewing the effect of that regime on their contracts and whether any of their contracts may be exempt under the Corporations Amendment (Stay on Enforcing Certain Rights) Regulations 2018 published on 24 June 2018.

The types of contracts excluded from the new ipso facto stay

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.

A recent NSW Supreme Court decision has decided that an insolvent contractor can claim under Security of Payment legislation, rejecting Victorian Court of Appeal precedent as "plainly wrong". It might have significant ramifications for participants in the building and construction industry across Australia.

In Seymour Whyte Constructions Pty Ltd v Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd (in liq) [2018] NSWSC 412, the NSW Supreme Court considered the extent to which Security of Payment (SOP) legislation can be relied upon by an insolvent contractor.

Stakeholders have until 11 May 2018 to comment on a key part of the new ipso facto regime – the exceptions to the statutory stay on ipso facto clauses in certain categories of contracts and rights.

The new insolvency legislation commencing 1 July 2018 (Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Enterprise Incentives No. 2) Act 2017) introduces a statutory stay on the exercise of contractual rights arising by reason of certain insolvency trigger events.

An important part of last year's package of amendments to the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) were the ipso facto reforms which will stay the exercise of certain contractual rights relating to a counterparty's insolvency or financial position. What, if any, contracts would be exempt from the stay has been a major question, not least for the construction industry.

This has now been answered, with the release of exposure drafts for public comment by May 11 2018 of the:

The Corporations Act 2001 sets out a regime for the order in which certain debts and claims are to be paid in priority to unsecured creditors.

That's straightforward enough for a liquidator, right?

Unfortunately, matters are not that straightforward. In effect, there are two priority regimes under the Act for the preferential payments of particular creditors, each of which applies to a different "fund", and we've observed this has led to some liquidators being unsure of how to proceed – or even worse, using funds they should not.