The Senate Economics Legislation Committee has strongly recommended that the Australian Parliament pass the reforms to Australia's safe harbour and ipso facto regime currently before the Senate. As the reforms have already passed through the House of Representatives, this means that as early as the end of August 2017, in prescribed circumstances, directors could be entitled to a safe harbour from personal liability for insolvent trading claims.

Safe harbour

The Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Enterprise Incentives No 2) Bill 2017 was passed by the House of Representatives on 22 June 2017 and has had a second reading moved in the Senate. 

The Bill:

In a previous Legal Insight, we foreshadowed potential guidance from the ASX on the interaction between the new insolvent trading safe harbour laws and the continuous disclosure obligations of a public company.

Introduction

In February 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion that, at first blush, appeared to severely curtail the scope of the transferee protections provided by Section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code, the “safe harbor” provision that shields specified types of payments from a bankruptcy trustee’s avoidance powers, including transfers “made by or to (or for the benefit of)” a “financial institution” in connection with a “securities contract.” A recent decision from the Second Circuit breathes fresh life into the defense.

The recent Supreme Court decision in Merit Management Group LP v. FTI Consulting, Inc. eliminated any circuit split or confusion over the language of the section 546(e) safe harbor.

The Supreme Court recently addressed two bankruptcy issues. In its opinion, the Court resolved a circuit split regarding the breadth of the safe harbor provision which protects certain transfers by financial institutions in connection with a securities contract. In Village at Lakeridge, the Court weighed in on the scope of appellate review and whether a bankruptcy court’s factual determination should be reviewed for clear error or de novo. These decisions are notable because they provide guidance on previously murky issues of bankruptcy law.

The Bankruptcy Code gives a bankruptcy trustee, or the debtor in possession, the power to “avoid” certain transfers made by the debtor at various times before filing for bankruptcy relief.

In a unanimous decision in Merit Mgmt. Grp., LP v. FTI Consulting, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the scope of a Bankruptcy Code exception to the “avoiding powers” of a bankruptcy trustee or Chapter 11 debtor-in-possession that permit invalidation (i.e., avoidance and clawback) of a limited category of transfers of property by a debtor or of a debtor’s interest in property.

Possible application of Section 101(22)(A) to safe harbor’s covered entity requirement raises important questions for future transferee defendants.

Key Points:

• Merit Management raises the possibility that customers of “financial institutions” may qualify for protection under Section 546(e) safe harbor even if they would not otherwise meet Section 546(e)’s covered entity requirement.

• Treating customers of “financial institutions” as covered entities could broaden the scope of safe harbor.

The U.S. Supreme Court recently scrutinized the proper application of the safe harbor found in Section 546(e) of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code1 in Merit Management Group, LP v. FTI Consulting Inc.2 While the Supreme Court's decision narrowed the reach of the safe harbor, it did little to change the landscape for the multi-billion dollar U.S. structured finance industry, including warehouse lending.