Discriminating DOCAs: when the courts will terminate a deed of company arrangement that seeks to discriminate against particular creditors.
With rising levels of corporate insolvencies, it is no surprise that the use of the voluntary administration regime for the purposes of putting forward a deed of company arrangement (DOCA) has increased. DOCAs have proven to be a time and cost-effective tool to recapitalise or restructure a distressed business.
‘Never in my career have I seen such a complete failure of corporate controls and such a complete absence of trustworthy financial information as occurred here’[1] — John J Ray III
The recent failure of the FTX cryptocurrency exchange highlights the need for investors and market participants to do their due diligence when it comes to corporate governance. Assumptions around the competency of individual directors and the corporate governance standards in various jurisdictions left some FTX investors writing off hundreds of millions of dollars invested in FTX.
WHO SHOULD READ THIS
- Insolvency practitioners, mortgagees or other secured creditors and their advisors.
THINGS YOU NEED TO KNOW
- Whilst the foreign resident capital gains withholding provisions (FRCGW) contain insolvency exceptions that exclude most asset disposal transactions undertaken in the insolvency area, it is important to recognise that not all insolvency transactions are excluded. Transactions by a mortgagee in possession may not be excluded.
WHAT YOU NEED TO DO
WHO SHOULD READ THIS
- Restructuring and insolvency professionals.
THINGS YOU NEED TO KNOW
- Understanding liabilities from a payroll tax perspective can be complex, particularly due to the broad nature of the grouping provisions.
- Unless care is taken situations may arise where restructuring and insolvency professionals will be grouped with client entities, potentially exposing personal entities to joint and several liability for client entity debts.
WHAT YOU NEED TO DO
Readers will recall that on 23 September 2016 we posted an article about recognition under the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency (Model Law) of the Korean rehabilitation proceedings for Hanjin Shipping.
‘Shipping steel, shipping steel . . .
Nobody knows, the way it feels
Caught between Heaven and the Highway
Shipping steel, shipping steel . . .’ 1
On 7 April 2016, Administrators were appointed to South Australian-based steelmaker and iron ore miner Arrium, which reportedly owed approximately AUD4.3 billion to its lenders, suppliers and staff. The appointment covered 94 direct and indirect subsidiaries of Arrium Limited (the Arrium Companies), which at the time employed around 8,100 employees and contractors.
The insolvency profession (and the Queensland market in particular) has been abuzz this year with the issue of CORA – a shorthand reference to theEnvironmental Protection (Chain of Responsibility) Amendment Act 2016 (Qld).
What does it mean for insolvency practitioners? Can banks really be hit with a bill to clean up their borrowers’ environmental damage? Will turnaround and restructuring professionals refuse to accept appointments out of fear of falling foul of the new regime?
This post explains what you need to know.
In August I presented on cross-border insolvency at the joint Federal Court of Australia and Law Council of Australia conference on corporations law. The audience consisted of over 30 Federal Court judges and a range of other experienced corporate and insolvency lawyers.
Unscrupulous advisors, unconscionably preying on desperate directors driven by the fear of losing everything, have created a boom in illegal phoenix activity. The below article, originally published on the McCullough Robertson white collar crime blog, Collared, sheds some light on the illegal phoenix, the gravity of the problem in Australia and considers what is being done to monitor and control the issue.
Last year’s Queensland District Court decision in Morton v Rexel Electrical Supplies Pty Ltd [2015] QDC 49 (Rexel) caused quite a stir in insolvency circles. In Rexel, Searles DCJ (a former partner of McCullough Robertson) found that section 553C of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act) could apply to reduce an unfair preference claim brought by a liquidator, by allowing the amount still owing by the company to be set-off against the liquidator’s claim.