On 28 September 2022, the Federal Government, through the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services (PJC), began an inquiry into corporate insolvency in Australia.

The announcement follows calls from industry for a ‘root and branch’ review of corporate insolvency law in Australia.

Submissions are open until 30 November 2022 and the PJC intends to table a report to Parliament by 30 May 2023.

The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services has commenced an inquiry into Australia’s corporate insolvency regime. The inquiry, due to be completed by 30 May 2023, will examine the effectiveness of the current regime and consider potential reform.

Key takeaways

When a borrowing company goes into administration, lenders will want to enforce their security immediately. However, administration risk delays lenders from enforcing their security during the moratorium period without leave from the court or consent from the administrator.

This article provides an insight into administration risk, explains ways to mitigate administration risk and how featherweight securities can be effectively used.

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.

In the recent case of In the matter of Spitfire Corporation Limited (in liquidation) and Aspirio Pty Ltd (in liquidation) [2022] NSWSC 340, the NSW Supreme Court has provided clarity on the order of priority for employee debts and secured creditor claims, where the key asset is an entitlement to tax refunds for research and development.

This matter involved the liquidators of Spitfire Corporation seeking directions under s 90-15 of the Insolvency Practice Schedule (Corporations) that:

Practitioners will be pleased to know that the NSW Supreme Court has provided clarity on the order of priority for employee debts and secured creditor claims.

The matter, In the matter of Spitfire Corporation Limited (in liquidation) and Aspirio Pty Ltd (in liquidation), involved the liquidators of two insolvent companies (Spitfire Corporation Ltd and Aspirio Pty Ltd) seeking directions under s 90-15 of the Insolvency Practice Schedule (Corporations).

Where the key asset of a technology start up is a potential entitlement to an R&D tax refund, the Spitfire decision provides important clarity for financiers of such businesses, as well as for liquidators (and employees) of those businesses which fail.  

When do amounts owed to a company constitute ‘circulating assets’ and how should they be distributed? This crucial question has not always been answered predictably in recent cases. The Court of Appeal’s decision in Resilient Investment Group Pty Ltd v Barnet and Hodgkinson as liquidators of Spitfire Corporation Limited (in liq) [2023] NSWCA 118 has provided a framework for navigating the relevant principles in the context of a priority dispute over R&D tax refunds.

Key takeaways

The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services (the Committee) has commenced an inquiry into the “effectiveness of Australia’s corporate insolvency laws in protecting and maximising value for the benefit of all interested parties and the economy”.^[1]

In a recent decision handed down in Gold Valley Iron Pty Ltd (in liq) v OPS Screening & Crushing Equipment Pty Ltd [2022] WASCA 134, Liquidators succeeded in establishing an ‘equipment lease with an option to purchase’ clause as being a security interest under the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 which needed to be registered by the owner.

Key takeaways