The Australian corporate rescue provisions : how do they compare?

A notable feature of corporate legislative development in western countries for the past 30 years is the various mechanisms introduced to facilitate the survival of company structures facing insolvency. Australia’s corporate rescue version, called a “voluntary administration”, is now contained in Part 5.3A of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), although first introduced in 1993. The Australian provisions apply to all corporate entities and commence with a short moratorium followed by a meeting of creditors. At the creditors’ meeting a “rescue” plan called a deed of company arrangement may be entered into, or, alternatively the company may be liquidated. The voluntary administration provisions have become a significant part of Australia’s corporate insolvency landscape and are critical to the operation of corporate law outside of insolvency. Australia does not have a specialist bankruptcy court, rather it utilises the English approach where insolvency practitioners are accountants and appointed to the insolvent company as administrators. In Australia, insolvency practitioners must be registered with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (“ASIC”), the corporate and securities regulator. A voluntary administration is usually commenced by the board of directors appointing an insolvency practitioner to the company. There exists no opportunity for a voluntary administration to commence at the creditors’ or court’s behest. This chapter seeks to address the comparative necessity of Australia’s corporate regime.

Commentary on papers by Professor Fletcher and Mr Martin

In light of the time available today, I will limit my comments to addressing that aspect of Professor Fletcher’s paper in which he refers to the 2012 report he co-authored with Professor Wessels of the Netherlands for the American Law Institute (ALI) and the International Insolvency Institute (III) on Transnational Insolvency: Global Principles for Cooperation in International Insolvency Cases. I will comment on the potential benefits for Australian courts as well as insolvency administrators and their advisers in referring to the ALI-III Report - in light of Australia’s adoption of the UNCITRAL Model Law. In so doing, I would like to acknowledge the support of the Australian Academy of Law, under the leadership of The Hon Dr Kevin Lindgren for the research project underpinning these comments, as well as to acknowledge the contributions of my colleagues Associate Professor Sheryl Jackson and Mark Wellard.

China's Enterprise Bankruptcy Law (EBL 2006): Cross-Border Perspectives

With China's new Enterprise Bankruptcy Law (‘EBL 2006’) having come into effect on 1 June 2007, a critical issue arises as to the extent to which Article 5, as a cross-border provision, will strengthen creditors' rights across jurisdictions. In this paper attention will be paid in particular to how the Chinese People's Court is likely to exercise its discretion to grant recognition to a foreign court ruling, and vice versa. The paper will start with a brief introduction to the circumstances under which Article 5 came into being. The evolution of China's cross-border insolvency practices will be examined through an analysis of an inbound case of B&T (2002) as well as an outbound one of GITIC (2005). In spite of the fact that China has not adopted the UNCITRAL Model Law, essential factors deemed necessary to be considered by China's court and its counterparts in US and UK are to be highlighted throughout the paper. Although the effect of Article 5 remains to be seen, it will be critically analysed focusing on some controversial issues.

La faillite internationale: droit comparé, le système canadien et le système européen

La faillite internationale est une matière complexe qui a donné lieu à un long et vif débat doctrinal entre les tenants des systèmes de la territorialité et de l'universalité. Une faillite est internationale lorsqu'elle met en présence un débiteur possédant des biens ou des créanciers dans plus d'un pays. Puisque la matière de faillite est souvent très différente d'un pays à l'autre, l'application du système de la pluralité, retenue dans la plupart des pays, soulève plusieurs problèmes particulièrement en ce qui concerne la coordination entre les diverses faillites et le manque de protection des créanciers, notamment parce qu'elle accorde des effets limités à la reconnaissance des procédures de faillite étrangères. En effet, en présence de procédures de faillite concurrentes il s'agit de répondre aux questions suivantes: quelle est la juridiction compétente pour ouvrir et organiser la faillite? Quelle est la loi applicable? Dans quels États cette faillite va-t-elle produire des effets? Dans le présent mémoire, il s'agit d'établir une comparaison entre le système canadien et le système européen en matière de faillite internationale. Le législateur canadien a récemment envisagé de modifier sa législation sur la faillite pour permettre une meilleure coopération internationale en matière de faillite internationale. Le projet canadien C-55 reprend pour l'essentiel les dispositions contenues dans la loi-type de la commission des Nations-Unis pour le droit commercial international (CNUDCI) sur «l'insolvabilité internationale». Ainsi, il permet de faciliter réellement la reconnaissance des décisions de faillite étrangères, il accorde une plus grande portée aux effets de cette reconnaissance et il prévoit une coordination des procédures multiples en établissant une «hiérarchisation» des procédures de faillite relativement semblable au système européen. Cependant, le projet canadien atteint moins bien l'objectif d'universalité que le Règlement européen 1346/2000 au niveau du traitement égalitaire entre les créanciers locaux et les créanciers étrangers. Si la loi-type offre à tous les États une utilité pratique considérable pour les nombreux cas de coopération internationale, l'harmonisation de la faillite internationale dépendra de son adoption dans les différentes législations. Bien que plusieurs pays aient inséré ce modèle dans leur législation sur la faillite, il n'est pas encore possible, à l'heure actuelle, de parler d'un droit international de la faillite.

Micro, small and medium enterprise in insolvency: An international perspective

UNCITRAL Working Group I is presently developing a legal framework dealing with the entire lifecycle of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises. The central focus of this work is to guide MSMEs in developing countries out of the grey economy and into the regulated, tax-paying space where these business will also have greater access to legitimate finance. Insolvency is an important, perhaps inevitable aspect of the life cycle of these enterprises. The question that is yet to be considered is a simplified insolvency regime for MSMEs. While the Working Group I is focused on the development of a model for developing economies, MSMEs in robust, highly developed economies also face particular challenges when faced with a solvency crisis. The present one-fits-all approach to insolvency requires a rethink.

Cross-border insolvency

Panellist commentary on delivered conference papers on the topic of Cross-border Insolvency.

International conventions and model laws : their impact on domestic commercial law

Panellist commentary on delivered conference papers on the topic of ‘International Conventions and Model Laws - Their Impact on Domestic Commercial Law’.

The emerging framework of cross-border insolvency in and around Australia : Saad Investments, Japan Airlines and Lehman Brothers – part one

Recent decades have witnessed a global acceleration of legislative and private sector initiatives to deal with Cross-Border insolvency. Legislative institutions include the various national implementations of the Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency (Model Law) published by the United Nations Commission on International Trade (UNCITRAL).3 Private mechanisms include Cross-Border protocols developed and utilised by insolvency professionals and their advisers (often with the imprimatur of the judiciary), on both general and ad hoc bases. The Asia Pacific region has not escaped the effect of those developments, and the economic turmoil of the past few years has provided an early test for some of the emerging initiatives in that region. This two-part article explores the operation of those institutions through the medium of three recent cases.

The emerging framework of cross-border insolvency in and around Australia : Saad Investments, Japan Airlines and Lehman Brothers – Part Two

Recent decades have witnessed a global acceleration of legislative and private sector initiatives to deal with Cross-Border insolvency. Legislative institutions include the various national implementations of the Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency (Model Law) published by the United Nations Commission on International Trade (UNCITRAL).3 Private mechanisms include Cross-Border protocols developed and utilised by insolvency professionals and their advisers (often with the imprimatur of the judiciary), on both general and ad hoc bases. The Asia Pacific region has not escaped the effect of those developments, and the economic turmoil of the past few years has provided an early test for some of the emerging initiatives in that region. This two-part article explores the operation of those institutions through the medium of three recent cases.