12 September 2017

Ipso facto law reform and managing insolvency risks in projects and construction

The increased level of financial risk within the major project, property and construction sectors has led to a spate of recent insolvencies.  In such insolvencies, we are seeing government, regulators and other stakeholders, particularly subcontractors, taking a more active and aggressive role.  For these reasons, it is becoming more important for financiers, owners, principals and contractors to manage counterparty insolvency risk as a key part of their project contingency plans.

With the new ipso facto regime due to commence on 1 July 2018 as part of the federal government’s insolvency innovation reform package, the position will become more complex.  This is because many of the contractual protections owners and principals currently rely upon in an insolvency scenario are about to become unenforceable.

At present, when a counterparty becomes insolvent, owners and principals will typically exercise one or more of the following “ipso facto” rights under their contract to improve or protect ther position:

  • suspend the works or take the works out of the counterparty’s hands on the ground of the counterparty’s insolvency;
  • terminate the contract on the ground of the counterparty’s insolvency;
  • call upon a bank guarantee, cash retention or other security to reduce their loss;
  • set-off their claims (whether liquidated or payable) against any payment claims by the counterparty; and/or
  • step-in and pay or engage essential subcontractors directly to mitigate loss and complete the outstanding works.

However, once the new regime comes into effect, in the event that an administrator or receiver over substantial assets is appointed or a scheme of arrangement to avoid winding up is proposed, the above “ipso facto” rights will be unenforceable against the counterparty if they arise for the reason of:

  • the administration, receivership or proposed scheme of arrangement;
  • the credit rating of the counterparty;
  • a breach of financial covenants such as net tangible assets or debt to equity ratios;
  • a change of control or material adverse effect based on the counterparty’s financial position;or
  • subject to court order, termination for convenience based on the counterparty’s financial position.

As a result, it is critically important for owners and principals to start to review the security, insolvency, breach, termination and set-off provisions of their contracts to ensure that they have the ability to identify the warning signs of counterparty insolvency risk and can act early to protect their position.  One such early warning sign will be the directors of the counterparty seeking to rely upon the new safe harbour protections against personal liability for insolvent trading, which will also commence as part of the same federal government insolvency reform package.

As the proposed ipso facto regime will not have retrospective effect, owners and principals should also consider a variation or extension of their existing agreements, rather than new contracts, once the reforms commence.

King & Wood Mallesons is a full service firm with specialist project, construction and insolvency experts who are experienced in successfully restructuring projects and have participated in the law reform consultation process.  We would be happy to assist in your contract review and developing your risk mitigation strategies and project contingency plans.

Key contacts

A Guide to Investing in Australian Real Estate

Investing Down Under offers a quick overview of the legal, taxation, FIRB and structuring issues you may encounter when investing in Australian real estate.

Investing in Australian Real Estate
Share on LinkedIn Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Google+
    You might also be interested in

    On 7 September 2017, the Queensland government released a further discussion paper about how resource operators could potentially provide financial assurance sureties.

    07 September 2017

    AEMC releases draft “more preferable” Contestability of energy services rule restricting distribution network service providers from earning a regulated return on “behind-the-meter” assets.

    06 September 2017

    Australia's State and Territory budgets have continued a trend of imposing taxes on foreign investment in real estate. Find out more about the stamp duty and land tax surcharges across the country.

    04 September 2017

    A number of tax concessions are available for Australian investment vehicles that qualify as managed investment trusts (MITs) for tax purposes. These were designed to encourage investment into...

    31 August 2017

    This publication has been downloaded from the King & Wood Mallesons website. It is provided only for your information and does not constitute legal or other advice on any specific matter. If you require or seek legal advice you should obtain such advice from your own lawyer, and should do so before taking, or refraining from taking, any action in reliance on this publication. If you have any questions, please contact King & Wood Mallesons. See www.kwm.com for more information.