Australia’s corporate insolvency laws are in a process of significant change.

The latest proposed reform concerns the controversial practice of “phoenixing”. In recent months and years, phoenixing has attracted attention from a wide band of Australian regulators.

The Phoenixing Bill

Since the decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales in Re Independent [2016] NSWSC 106, there has been doubt about whether receivers and liquidators should apply the statutory priorities afforded to employee entitlements in sections 433, 561 and 556 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act) when distributing the assets of companies who have conducted their businesses as trusts.

In the current economic environment, there are a number of entities that are being restructured. Our current experience has been that such restructurings fall into two areas, namely a debt for equity swap or a release of “toxic” assets from a group structure in order to minimise exposure to this asset class.

Debt for Equity Swap

On April 17, 2012, the Northern Mariana Islands Retirement Fund (the “Fund”) became the first United States public pension fund to seek formal bankruptcy protection. The Fund, which provides retirement benefits to government employees of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (the “Commonwealth”) a U.S. territory, listed $256 million in assets and $1 billion in liabilities and has alleged it will exhaust its claims paying ability by as early as 2014. ”

In our May 24 entry on this topic, the Northern Mariana Islands Retirement Fund (the “Fund”) was battling numerous challenges to its Chapter 11 eligibility. The dispute revolved around whether the Fund, which provides benefits to government workers and retirees, was a “governmental unit” as defined by the Bankruptcy Code. In a decision from the bench on June 1st, U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge Robert Faris affirmed his May 29th tentative ruling that the Fund is a “governmental unit” and, as such, is ineligible for Chapter 11.

A federal district court, applying Pennsylvania law, has held that the insolvency exclusion in an insurance agency’s professional liability policy excused the insurer from the duty to defend the agency in lawsuits alleging that it had caused employee benefit plans that it created to be underfunded.  ACE Capital Limited v. Morgan Waldon Ins. Management, LLC, Civil Action No. 11-128, 2011 WL 5914275 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 28, 2011).

The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, applying Florida law, has held that exclusions for claims involving the receivership of a healthcare benefit plan and claims involving Multiple Employer Welfare Arrangements (MEWA) barred coverage for claims brought by a receiver of a healthcare benefit plan alleging that brokers sold coverage under a benefit plan that was a MEWA. White v. Cont'l Cas. Co., 2008 WL 2073905 (M.D. Fla. May 14, 2008).

The Court of Appeal’s decision in the case of Heis v MF Global highlights the importance of documenting just who has responsibility for contributing to a defined benefit pension scheme.

EIS AND OTHERS V MF GLOBAL UK SERVICES LTD (IN ADMINISTRATION) [2016] EWCA CIV 569, [2016] ALL ER (D) 125 (JUN)

The Supreme Court has ruled that Financial Support Directions issued by the Pensions Regulator against insolvent companies can be claimed as provable debts in the insolvency process. The previous decisions of the High Court and Court of Appeal that they were to be paid as insolvency expenses have been overruled.

The decision was handed down in the Court’s judgment on the latest appeal in the long-running Nortel and Lehman saga, which arose out of a grey area in the elaborate statutory system for the funding of defined benefit pension schemes.

One month ago, Judge Christopher Klein ruled in the city of Stockton, CA bankruptcy case that public employee pension obligations can be impaired in municipal bankruptcy cases under Chapter 9 of the Bankruptcy Code.  Last week, however, Judge Klein approved the plan of adjustment for Stockton that left public pension obligations intact over the vociferous objection of Franklin Investments, a major city bondholder whose claim was substantially reduced.  The confirmation of the Stockton plan underscores that even as there now appears to be a sound legal foundatio