Insolvency Reforms: for better or for worse?
Category: Property Law, Insolvency & Restructuring, Australia
Date: 24 November 2013
Author: Matt Gauchi - Genuine People
On 24 September 2020, the Australian Federal Government announced what it called the most significant reforms to Australia's insolvency framework in over 30 years.
"The reforms, which draw on key features from Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the United States, will help more small businesses restructure and survive the economic impact of ",' says Treasurer Josh Frydenberg.[1]
Key elements of the proposed reforms include:
Date: 24 November 2013
Author: Matt Gauchi - Genuine People
- the introduction of a new debt restructuring process for incorporated businesses with liabilities of less than $1 million, drawing on some features of the Chapter 11 bankruptcy model in the United States;
- moving from a one-size-fits-all "creditor in possession" model to a more flexible "debtor in possession" model which will allow eligible businesses to restructure their existing debts while remaining in control of their business;
- a rapid twenty business day period for the development of a restructuring plan by a small business practitioner, followed by fifteen business days for creditors to vote on the plan;
- a new, simplified liquidation pathway for small businesses to allow faster and lower cost liquidation;
- complementary measures to ensure the insolvency sector can respond effectively both in the short and long term to increased demand and to meet the needs of small businesses.
- directors will retain control whilst developing a binding plan with the assistance of a small business insolvency practitioner (as opposed to an administrator being placed in control whilst a DOCA proposal is being negotiated);
- in order for the binding plan to be approved, it must be supported by more than 50% of the creditors by value (where the DOCA regime requires support of a majority of creditors both in number and in value);
- employee entitlements that are due and payable must be paid out in full before the plan is voted on by creditors (this is not presently the case);
- related creditors are prohibited from voting (which is a safeguard to prevent corporate misconduct, for example phoenix activity).
