Debt Recovery | Insolvency | Commercial Litigation

Optimism in the face of uncertainty

March 14, 2025Insights

How can proactive risk management strategies help businesses navigate regulatory and economic uncertainties?

Typically, crisis planning involves the management of many sorts of risks. No matter what industry, you should have risk plans in place that are relevant to your industry. Whilst it may not be possible to plan for every eventuality, a risk plan ought to be in place for the challenges you can predict, also called known unknowns.

Firstly, having a risk management strategy is important, even if it is costly to establish because being prepared minimises risk. Secondly, if you operate effectively then changes in economic policy are less likely to drastically affect you. When designing your risk management strategies, commonly, the following steps are useful:

Assess the impact of the uncertain regulatory issue on your firm, then assess your degree of regulatory
uncertainty. Next you should identify your current coping strategies, including a review of their breadth and consistency. Finally, using this knowledge you can devise an appropriate strategic posture. Further potential strategies include:

• Investigation: Collect additional information; draw on professional expertise to be applied in decision making.

• Influencing: Manipulate determining circumstances or actors that constitute uncertainty.

• Stabilisation: Implement standard procedures or establish long-term contracts.

• Integration: Restructure business portfolios through divestitures, acquisitions, and mergers.

• Internal design: Change organisational design by establishing modular structures, low degree of formalisation, or decentralisation.

• Postponement: Defer decisions and wait for more certainty.

• No-regret moves: Execute activities that are advantageous regardless of how uncertainty resolves.

• Substitution: Replace uncertain decision criteria with assumptions derived from comprehensive consideration or detailed analysis.

• Cooperation: Collaborate with suppliers, customers, or competitors, e.g. in research or production; engage in trade associations.

• Imitation: Examine and copy the strategy of your competitors.

• Withdrawal: Exit the business in uncertain markets and focus on predictable environments.

In times of economic distress and change, how can professional services firms assist in maximising value while minimising disruptions?

Typically, the size or structure of a business will dictate how to minimise disruptions. In a large firm, there are greater resources, whereas in a smaller firm, there is greater scope to react quicker to change. The ability to modify an organisation’s business model as a consequence of a crisis is called antifragility.

The issues to consider include being flexible enough to enable change where necessary. As an example, smaller businesses tend to be able to address change promptly because they can make faster decisions, with potentially better results. Larger businesses have a larger bureaucracy but may have greater resources to enable experienced person to make prompt decisions. To make the best decision, it is important to have strong and decisive leaders.

Also, embracing technology is key in any business, large or small. During COVID-19, shifting quickly to online + digital services was vital to survival.

How can clients approach the risk of uncertainty and turn it into opportunity?

In general, risk and uncertainty are different concepts. On the one hand, risks are generally known unknowns,
whereas uncertainty deals with unknown unknowns. Being flexible and optimistic enables one to have the best mindset, which involves thinking “how can maximise this opportunity?”, rather than “how do I minimise this risk?”. In this respect:

Firstly, human resource management is critical, you should make sure the person who can create the most value is on the project/task.

Secondly, it is critical to make sure that your business is generally aligned with customer needs.

Thirdly, knowledge is always key and therefore overconfidence needs to be avoided.

Fourthly, it is wise to underestimate the value of any kind of knowledge gained from previous experience.

Fifth, having a proactive risk management strategy is also an effective way to know how a situation should be handled.

The real issue is failing to embrace uncertainty and subsequently failing to innovate, which can lead to failure. History is littered with examples of businesses failing to take risks and thereby missing out on opportunities – for example, Kodak missed the opportunity to invest in Instagram when available, while Yahoo passed up the opportunity to buy Google for $1 million in 2002.

Key Takeaways

1. Developing a comprehensive risk management strategy helps businesses navigate uncertainties by minimising risks, adapting to economic changes, and leveraging tools like AI. Effective strategies include assessing regulatory impacts, adopting flexible structures, and employing techniques like stabilising operations or diversifying portfolios.
2. Flexibility, decisive leadership, and embracing technology are vital for mitigating disruptions, especially during crises. Smaller firms can quickly adapt due to agility, while larger firms benefit from extensive resources. Antifragility—modifying business models during crises—ensures resilience and growth.
3. Viewing uncertainty as an opportunity fosters innovation and growth. Aligning with customer needs, leveraging human resources effectively, and learning from past experiences can uncover new opportunities. Failure to embrace uncertainty risks missed innovations, as seen in Kodak and Yahoo’s missed investments.

This is James Conomos' submission to IR Global's 'The Visionaries'. Read the full publication here.

by IR Global

JCL Law Partners to Sponsor IR Global’s ‘On the Road’ Conference Dinner in New Delhi

January 28, 2025Insights

Next month, James Conomos (Managing Director) will be attending IR Global’s latest ‘On the Road’ Conference in New Delhi. JCL Law Partners will have the pleasure of sponsoring the event’s exclusive networking dinner in the Shah Jehan Ballroom of the luxurious Taj Palace Hotel.

Jim will be meeting with professionals from a variety of jurisdictions, all active in the Asia-Pacific region offering an invaluable opportunity to connect with like-minded individuals from across the globe. 

Throughout the event, there will be numerous opportunities to both learn and network - from presentations and breakout sessions to social activities in luxury venues, all in the backdrop of India’s vibrant capital.

In the modern world, having a global network is more important than ever. Through attending these events, we hope to continue to expand our international presence and capabilities, expanding our client offerings.

by James Conomos Lawyers

Recovery of costs by solicitors acting on their own behalf – another nail in the coffin

August 9, 2024Insights

In the recent decision of Manzo v CSM Lawyers Pty Ltd [2024] FCAFC 96, the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia determined that an incorporated legal practice which had represented itself in litigation was not entitled to recover its professional costs from its unsuccessful opponent.

In doing so, the Court considered conflicting authority from the Courts of Appeal in both Victoria and New South Wales and also seemingly closed-off a possible loophole which had been left ajar by the decision of the plurality in the High Court in Bell Lawyers Pty Ltd v Pentelow (2019) 269 CLR 333 (Bell Lawyers Decision).

Background

The Chorley Exception (so named after the decision London Scottish Benefit Society v Chorley (1884) 13 QBD 872) is (or was, in Australia) an exception to the well-established rule that because an order for costs is intended to provide an indemnity for costs actually incurred (as opposed to providing compensation for productive time expended), a self-represented litigant is not entitled to professional costs for acting for him or herself in legal proceedings.  The Chorley Exception provided that self-represented litigants who are solicitors are entitled to recover professional costs for work they have undertaken in legal proceedings.

In Pentelow v Bell Lawyers Pty Ltd [2018] NSWCA 150, the New South Wales Court of Appeal held that the Chorley Exception applied to work undertaken by self-represented litigants who were barristers, in addition to those who were solicitors.

On appeal, in September 2019 the High Court of Australia overturned the decision of the NSW Court of Appeal, finding that the Chorley Exception did not form a part of the common law of Australia ([2019] HCA 29).  In so doing, the High Court effectively abolished the Chorley Exception in Australia.

The plurality in the High Court left the door slightly ajar in respect of whether a self-represented incorporated legal practice (ILP) may recover costs of acting on its own behalf (Bell Lawyers Decision at [51]).

Since the Bell Lawyers Decision, conflicting authorities have arisen in the Courts of Appeal in Victoria and New South Wales regarding whether a self-represented ILP may recover costs of acting on its own behalf.

In United Petroleum Australia Pty Ltd v Freehills [2020] VSCA 15 (United Petroleum) the Victorian Court of Appeal denied an ILP its costs in respect of work done on its behalf by its employed solicitors.

In Atanaskovic v Birketu Pty Ltd [2023] NSWSC 312 (Atanaskovic), although at first instance the partners of an unincorporated practice had been denied costs in respect of work undertaken by their employed solicitors, on appeal the NSW Court of Appeal determined that the inclusion of “remuneration” within the definition of “costs” in the relevant NSW legislation entitled an ILP to recover costs incurred by its employed solicitors in representing the firm.  That decision, however, turns upon the specific terms of the NSW legislation.

The present proceeding

The firm, CSM Lawyers Pty Ltd (CSM) is an ILP.

An issue arose as to whether CSM ought to be entitled to recover its costs in respect of work undertaken by its employed solicitors on its behalf against Mr Manzo relating to an appeal proceeding instituted by Mr Manzo.

In support of its application for its costs CSM submitted, in effect, that because it was an ILP with more than one director and shareholder (i.e. it was not a sole-director and sole-shareholder ILP), there was sufficient independence (or detachment) between the firm as party and the employed solicitors undertaking the work on its behalf so as not to infringe the indemnity principle if it were to be awarded its costs of the proceeding.  That position was consistent with the observations of the plurality in the Bell Lawyers Decision.

After considering the Bell Lawyers Decision and those decisions that have followed in Victoria and NSW, the Full Court preferred the approach taken by the Victorian Court of Appeal in United Petroleum and stating that if CSM’s submissions were accepted, “[i]n effect, it would create an artificial distinction based on the size of an incorporated legal practice.”

The Full Court did, however, permit CSM to recover their outlays in the proceeding, including counsel’s fees.

The effect of the decision

The decision closes the door, at least in courts in the Federal jurisdiction, on the potential loophole left in the decision of the plurality in the Bell Lawyers Decision in respect of the costs of self-represented ILPs acting on their own behalf in proceedings.

Although not strictly binding upon courts in the state jurisdictions, the decision is likely to be persuasive in the state courts (perhaps other than in NSW, where it is inconsistent with the Atanaskovic Decision).

Furthermore, the decision will likely serve as an effective block upon the pursuit of bankruptcy proceedings founded upon costs orders awarded in favour of self-represented ILPs.

Where to now?

The Atanaskovic Decision is the subject of an appeal to the High Court, special leave having been granted in April 2024.

The determination of that decision may resolve, once and for all, whether the last limited element of the Chorley Exception remains in Australian Law.

by James Conomos Lawyers

James Conomos Lawyers Becomes JCL Law Partners

June 10, 2024Insights

As of 10 June 2024, the firm has rebranded from James Conomos Lawyers to JCL Law Partners.

We have operated as James Conomos Lawyers since 1 July 1992, when the firm was first established by James Conomos. Since that time, we have built a reputable brand name in JCL - something we have sought to retain as part of the rebrand.

The words “Law Partners” signify a move forward and a new structure in the form of James Conomos and Adrian Robins as directors and will enable further growth, including the introduction of further directors and lawyers.

We are also excited to announce that the rebrand coincides with our move to a new office on Level 4 of Turbot Place.

Whilst our visual identity has changed, our dedication to exceptional client service has and will not. We would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your ongoing support. We look forward to welcoming you to our new office in the near future!

by James Conomos Lawyers

James Conomos Lawyers Sponsors IR Global 'On the Road' Conference in Dubai

February 29, 2024Insights

Last week, James Conomos (Managing Director) & Justine Fletcher (Practice Manager) attended IR Global’s latest ‘On the Road’ Conference in Dubai. James Conomos Lawyers had the pleasure of being a headline sponsor of the event.

Jim and Justine were pleased to have met with 130+ members from a variety of jurisdictions, offering an invaluable opportunity to connect with like-minded individuals from across the globe. 

After landing, we hosted a pre-event private dinner at the incredible Prime 68 restaurant, alongside Dubai-native Paoletti Law Group, membership sponsors of the event.

Throughout the event, there were numerous opportunities to learn from and connect with members from a variety of jurisdictions - from presentations and breakout sessions to opening and closing drinks receptions and a luxury networking dinner. We enjoyed strengthening our relationships with fellow IR Global members while learning so much about the region.

In the modern world, having international connections is more important than ever. We look forward to future events with IR Global where we can continue to expand our international presence and capabilities.

by James Conomos Lawyers

Federal Court outlines when a liquidator may recover general liquidation remuneration and costs from trust assets

February 22, 2023Insights

In the recent decision Lawrence, Ozifin Tech Pty Ltd (in liq) v AGM Markets Pty Ltd (in liq) [2022] FCA 1478, the Federal Court of Australia has provided useful guidance on when a liquidator may recover general liquidation remuneration and costs from trust assets.

Background

In this judgment, liquidators of multiple companies were successful in obtaining directions and declarations they sought regarding the distribution of statutory trust funds, and obtaining payment of their fees from trust assets.

AGM Markets Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (AGM), OT Markets Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (OT) and Ozifin Tech Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (Ozfin) were service providers offering web-based trading platforms to retail clients for opening and closing margin foreign exchange contracts and ‘contracts for differences’ positions.

AGM was the only entity to hold an Australian Financial Services Licence (AFSL). OT and Ozifin were authorised to provide certain financial services on behalf of AGM through separate agreements. AGM’s role was mainly as an issuer of financial products, and the custodian of the client funds of OT and Ozifin.

Between February 2018 and October 2020, ASIC led Federal Court proceedings against the Companies for various breaches of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act), including unconscionability and profiting from conflicts of interest. As a result of those proceedings, AGM’s AFSL was cancelled and pecuniary penalties of $75 million ordered. The Federal Court also held that the Companies be wound up, with separate liquidators appointed to each entity. The Companies liquidators (Liquidators) sought directions and declarations regarding the distribution of trust funds held by the Companies.

Intervention by ASIC

ASIC intervened in each application and took an opposing view to the liquidators in terms of the characterisation of the constructive trust funds and whether the liquidators could take out their general liquidation costs and expenses in priority to the investors who are the beneficiaries of such non-statutory trusts. ASIC asserted that each of the relevant trusts involved an institutional constructive trust rather than a remedial constructive trust. Accordingly, the Liquidators sought to use constructive trust funds to pay general liquidation costs and expenses.

His Honour Beach J rejected ASIC’s submissions that the constructive trusts should be characterised as institutional for the following reasons:

• the application of a remedial constructive trust is preferred where funds are held by the constructive trustee as a result of their own misconduct;
• the client accounts were not static after the Companies’ wrongdoing occurred, making the determination of funds payable very intricate;
• the element of judicial discretion was absent from ASIC’s submissions, which is required in institutional and remedial constructive trusts;
• an institutional constructive trust is unpreferable where it has the effect of preventing a liquidator from recouping their general liquidation costs and expenses.

Beach J further determined that even if an institutional constructive trust were to be imposed, the Liquidators would still be entitled to deduct from it their general liquidation costs and expenses.

His Honour lastly considered the Court’s “expansive jurisdiction to allow a liquidator’s remuneration to be paid out of assets of a trust” and held that the liquidators’ general liquidation work had the effect of indirectly benefitting the trust and its beneficiaries.

Key takeaways

Beach J relevantly provides that:

• neither Staatz or Park are authority for any principle that liquidators cannot recover general liquidation costs from trust funds in an appropriate case. Both are an application of the broad discretionary power to the circumstances of the relevant case. The question is one of discretion with each case turning on its own facts (at [210]);
• generally, whether general liquidation costs can be recovered from trust assets is a matter for the Court to determine, and relevant factors include the extent to which the relevant company acted in its capacity as trustee of a trust and whether there are separately identifiable company assets from which the remuneration of the liquidators might be paid (at [220]).

This decision resolves the history of uncertainty in cases recovering general liquidation expenses from trust assets and considers the appropriate characterisation of funds subject to constructive trusts. The outcome reinforces the notion that courts will ensure to prevent a liquidator from being exposed for their costs and expenses. It also highlights that courts will generally support arrangements that result in cost-effective distributions to beneficiaries.

by James Conomos Lawyers