Ironbridge Legal

Trevor Withane, Partner at Ironbridge Legal, explains how the firm helps clients resolve complex disputes and restructuring events with clear strategy, decisive execution and confidence in the outcome.   What do you see as the main points that differentiate Ironbridge Legal from your competitors? Ironbridge Legal is a specialist disputes and restructuring firm built for complex, high-stakes matters. Clients come to us when the consequences are material, the facts are moving, and they need an outcome-focused strategy rather than a theoretical analysis. Three things differentiate us. First, we are conflict-free by design, which matters in Australia’s concentrated market. It means we can act where others cannot, particularly in disputes involving major institutions, repeat players, or multiple stakeholders. Second, partner-led execution. We stay close to the detail and the strategy, and we move with pace when timing and leverage are critical. Third, commercial clarity. We focus early on the real drivers of risk and value, and we give advice that is structured, practical and directly connected to action. We also invest heavily in written analysis and thought leadership that is tactical and usable, because sophisticated clients and referrers want to see how you think before they pick up the phone.   Which practices do you see growing in the next 12 months? What are the drivers behind that? We expect growth across three connected areas. First, restructuring and insolvency disputes. Even where insolvencies do not spike, stress events are producing more contested outcomes, including enforcement disputes, contested appointments, investigations, recovery actions and priority fights. Second, private credit and special situations enforcement. The market is deeper and more sophisticated, and that naturally drives workouts, restructuring negotiations, security enforcement and court processes where counterparties do not cooperate. As capital stacks become more complex, disputes become more technical and more urgent. Third, regulatory risk and follow-on disputes, including cyber and privacy-related issues. As regulators become more interventionist, boards and executives are seeking advice that is fast, defensible and aligned with contemporaneous decision-making. That also flows through into contractual disputes about incident response, allocation of risk, and performance obligations. Across all three, the driver is compressed decision windows. Clients want lawyers who can impose order quickly, make good calls early, and execute without delay.   What's the main change you've made in the firm that will benefit clients? The most beneficial change has been sharpening how we scope, stage and run matters so clients get clearer direction earlier and more predictability as a dispute evolves. We now place more emphasis on the front end of a matter: defining the commercial objective, identifying the true leverage points, mapping the likely pathways, and setting decision gates. That allows clients to make informed choices sooner, including whether to escalate, hold, settle, or apply targeted pressure. We have also tightened our communication rhythm. Clients want certainty: what is happening, what happens next, what it will cost, and what we need from them. We deliver advice in a way that supports decision-makers reporting to boards, investment committees and stakeholders. The outcome is practical: faster momentum, fewer surprises, better cost control, and a clearer line of sight to resolution. In high-stakes disputes, that discipline can be the difference between containing a problem early and letting it become value-destructive.   Is technology changing the way you interact with your clients, and the services you can provide them? Yes, particularly around speed, collaboration and the quality of execution. We use secure digital workflows to share documents, manage versions and keep the right people aligned. That is increasingly important where matters involve multiple stakeholders, time zones, or urgent court timetables. Internally, technology is helping us work faster and more precisely, including document analysis, chronology building and research. The point is not to replace judgment. It is to remove friction so senior lawyers spend more time on strategy, risk, narrative and the tactical sequencing that wins disputes. Clients feel the difference in responsiveness and clarity. They get quicker turnaround, tighter written advice, and better visibility of next steps. We are disciplined about confidentiality and governance. We adopt tools where they measurably improve service and outcomes, and we remain focused on what clients ultimately pay for: clear thinking, decisive execution and defensible results.   Can you give us a practical example of how you have helped a client to add value to their business? A typical example is a client facing a distressed counterparty where delay is eroding leverage and value. In one such matter, we moved quickly to stabilise the position: we clarified the contractual and security landscape, identified the pressure points, and implemented a strategy that combined targeted enforcement steps with a controlled negotiation pathway. The focus was to protect value, preserve optionality, and avoid an uncontrolled escalation that would consume management time and create reputational and operational risk. The value to the client was tangible: improved recovery prospects, faster time-to-resolution, and a clearer narrative for internal stakeholders and financiers. Just as importantly, it allowed the business to keep operating while the dispute was being resolved, with risk contained and decisions made on a disciplined timetable. That is often where the real “value add” sits in disputes and restructuring events: making the right early calls, choosing the right tools, and executing in a way that creates outcomes rather than simply running a process.   Are clients looking for stability and strategic direction from their law firms - where do you see the firm in three years’ time? Clients are looking for stability in the form that matters: calm leadership, clear strategy and consistent execution, particularly when commercial conditions and regulatory settings are shifting. In three years, we see Ironbridge Legal further strengthening its position as a first-choice firm for complex disputes and restructuring work, while staying true to the model that clients value: specialist focus, conflict-free capability, and partner-led delivery. Our growth will be deliberate. The objective is not scale for its own sake. It is depth of capability and consistency of service across a wider platform, so clients can rely on us for the most difficult matters and know exactly what they will receive: clear advice, fast momentum, and a plan that is built around the outcome. We will continue investing in talent, systems and knowledge so we stay sharp as disputes become more complex and timeframes compress. Ultimately, clients want a firm that can bring clarity and certainty in high-stakes moments. That remains our direction.

What do you see as the main points that differentiate Ironbridge Legal from your competitors? When I launched Ironbridge Legal, I was clear about what I wanted to build - a truly specialist, focused and intellectually rigorous commercial litigation and insolvency law practice, supporting domestic and international clients in complex and challenging matters. Our proposition stands out in the market, and our team is eager to deliver a different approach to litigation and insolvency law. Whilst many smaller firms support an industry or specific client type or try to be all things to all people, we instead focus on our technical legal and strategic expertise, backed by a commitment to service quality. What claims are you seeing on the rise in Australia? We have seen an increase in the number of fraud claims being investigated and pursued. Increased instances of fraud typically follow global catastrophes, such as the GFC. COVID-19 has had a similar effect. Additionally, expanded remote working and use of cloud-based technology to conduct business leaves companies vulnerable to fraud. Fraud matters are delicate and effective crisis-management is paramount to preserve evidence and avoid tipping off potential fraudsters who might attempt to put assets beyond the reach of the putative claimant. Victims of fraud should consider the possibility of obtaining asset freezing orders and search orders – which Australian courts are willing to grant. Shareholder disputes are increasingly prevalent. We have seen an increase in warranty claims under shareholder agreements, particularly where shareholders become concerned that management might have provided false or misleading pre-investment information. We are seeing an increase in cash calls being made under shareholder agreements where shareholders then seek to renege on promises to invest further. Similarly, we are noticing an increase in claims made by investors seeking to exit underperforming investments.  These claims are often for misleading and deceptive conduct in the pre-investment material provided by the company (including in ASX announcements), on which the investor alleges it relied in making the investment. In disputes generally, we have noticed a trend towards arbitration as the jurisdiction to resolve commercial disputes in Australia and internationally, most substantially in construction matters. What is the Australian Court's attitude to supporting foreign and arbitral proceedings? The Australian courts have the power to grant orders in support of foreign proceedings. For example, Australian courts can issue freezing orders in relation to foreign proceedings to prevent a defendant from moving or dissipating assets.  Freezing orders and search orders may assist a claimant with recoverability or procuring an early settlement of the dispute. In insolvency proceedings, a letter of request from a court of another jurisdiction may mean that an Australian court is required to act 'in aid of' or 'auxiliary to' the overseas court. Recently, this has allowed for joint insolvency proceedings to be held with a court of another jurisdiction (see Kelly, in the Matter of Halifax Investment Services Pty Ltd (in liq) (No 5) [2019] FCA 1341). Australian courts also have, and regularly exercise, the power to grant orders in support of both domestic and international arbitral proceedings – for example by issuing anti-suit injunctions. Australian courts demonstrate an increasingly receptive attitude to recognising and enforcing arbitral awards from overseas institutions. What are the trends in insolvency and restructuring in Australia? The rapid introduction of regulation to combat tsunami of insolvencies due to the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic has ensured low levels of corporate insolvencies. However, we consider that these low insolvency levels reflect policy, not the economic reality of a company’s true financial state. The first COVID-19 lockdowns in 2020 resulted in Australia’s first recession in 30 years. Economic growth did recover in 2021, but never returned to pre-pandemic levels.  We are yet to be given a proper insight into the effects of the nationwide 2021 lockdowns on GDP, and its effect on corporate Australia. Formal insolvency appointments are likely to remain low whilst the Australian Tax Office continues its lenient approach to repayment schemes and enforcement action. However, as limitations on statutory demands ease and government wage subsidies end, many companies will begin to feel the pressure from creditors more acutely.  We expect to see an increasing number of insolvencies in the months and years to come. This trend was evident following the GFC-triggered economic downturn of 2008. Despite the economic decline in 2008 and 2009, the appointment of liquidators was relatively low. Shortly thereafter, in the economic recovery period of 2012 to 2014, we saw a greatly elevated number of insolvency appointments. What are the limits of Model Law recognition in Australia? The UNCITRAL Model Law has been operative in Australia since the commencement of the Cross-Border Insolvency Act 2008 (Cth). There are three ways the recognition of the Model Law in Australian proceedings may be impeded. If an oversees insolvency matter is not considered to be a ‘foreign proceeding’ by the court, then it will not be recognisable in Australia under the Model Law. Similarly, if a person is not defined as a ‘foreign representative’ under the Model Law they are not able to obtain orders from an Australian court in relation to a foreign insolvency proceeding.  In cross border insolvencies an issue may also arise in defining the Centre of Main Interest (COMI). As recently illustrated in the NSW Supreme Court, the Model Law will not be recognised where the COMI is found to be outside a Model Law state (Re Hydrodec Group Plc [2021] NSWSC 755). What is Australia's primary business rescue mechanism? Voluntary administration is Australia’s primary business rescue regime. The process of voluntary administration is temporary and has three potential outcomes. A deed of company arrangement (DOCA) may be agreed between a company and its creditors. This is a compromise which is flexible, and designed to promote the ultimate survival of the business. Alternatively, the administrator may, with or without restructuring, return this business to the directors and it will continue operating. Finally, in a situation where creditors resolve a company be wound up, the business will be placed into liquidation. Unlike the Chapter 11 approach in the United States where the directors remain in control of the company, in Australia when a company is placed into voluntary administration, the administrator takes over the reins (often with the continued support of the management). Many companies use the voluntary administration regime to restructure their way out of debt. Ironbridge Legal has extensive experience assisting clients through each of these outcomes. We never adopt a cookie-cutter approach to legal advice, and this reflects the flexibility of Australia’s voluntary administration framework. We apply our commercial and legal expertise to provide a unique and strategy-based approach to each client.