Introduction:

The Australian Federal Government announced temporary amendments, effective 24 March 2020, to insolvency and corporations law in response to the challenges that businesses are facing as a result of the COVID-19 crisis. These amendments provide a safety net to businesses in challenging times to foster survival for those businesses once the crisis has passed.

The case of Hunt (as Liquidator of System Building Services Group Ltd) v Michie & Ors [2020] EWHC 54 (Ch) examines whether directors’ duties continue after the company has become insolvent and confirms that they do, bringing welcome clarity to the point. As such, Insurers will need to review their policies to make clear if they wish to cover this risk.

Forum bias, along with some technical issues, are still challenges in cross-border insolvencies in Australia

Just over ten years ago, Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy in the US, which turned out to be one of the largest cross-border insolvency cases in history.

Last year also marks:

Safe harbour and ipso facto clauses reforms are closer, with the consultation on the Insolvency Laws Amendment Bill 2017 having closed last week, but further work is needed.

The Federal Government's consultation on the safe harbour and ipso facto reforms in the draft Insolvency Laws Amendment Bill 2017 closed on 17 May 2017, so we now have a better idea of what they will look like.

Directors are first and foremost responsible to the company as a whole and must exercise their powers and discharge their duties in good faith in the best interests of the company and for a proper purpose. The reference to "acting in the best interests of the company" has generally been interpreted to mean the collective financial interests of the shareholders.

Assets held by an insolvent corporate trustee in its capacity as trustee may not be "property of the company".

For more than 30 years, Victoria has stood apart from the rest of Australia in how it treats the assets of an insolvent corporate trustee. That may have changed, following the Supreme Court's decision in Re Amerind Pty Ltd (receivers and managers appointed) (in liq) [2017] VSC 127.

The decision in the Go Energy Group is an important one for insolvency practitioners, who now have guidance on how to manage the conflicts that can arise when acting as liquidator to multiple companies within a corporate group.

Key Points:

While shareholders may only need to establish indirect market causation, there are still significant obstacles for establishing shareholder claims.

Do plaintiffs in a shareholder class action have to show they relied upon misleading or deceptive conduct, or is it enough that the market in general relied upon them, which then affected the share price?

Last Thursday's decision in the WA Supreme Court to allow a sale to insiders of a company subject to a deed of company arrangement will make the restructuring process smoother for administrators, who can now negotiate with a wider pool of potential purchasers, as Chapter 2E of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), which deals with related party transactions, will not apply (Mighty River International v Bryan Hughes and Daniel Bredenkamp as Deed Administrators of Mesa Minerals Ltd (Subject to Deed of Company Arrangement) [No 2] [2018] WASC 368; Clayton Utz acted for the deed administrators of Mes

Key Points:

You can lead a director to the safe harbour, but you can't make him drink.

The Government's new approach to insolvency is long on rhetoric about risk taking and the need to remove the stigma of business failure.

However, it is short on detailed consideration of exactly why we have legal rules for corporate and personal insolvency.

Those rules aim to balance the interests of creditors against the need to encourage business start-ups.