On 2 July 2012 the Australian Securities and Investment Commission launched a new website for the publication of insolvency and other notices.

The site provides a centralised and consolidated medium for the publication of insolvency related notices required by the Corporations legislation. Formerly, such notices were publicised through newspapers and other print media, and in some instances as this, systems transition continue to be published on both due to transactional issues.

The website was announced in late 2011, but only came in effect on 2 July 2012.

In Peter Grossman v Australian Securities and Investment Commission [2011] AATA 6, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal upheld a 5 year disqualification period against former director Mr Grossman who was at the helm of 3 companies that met financial demise. The Tribunal affirmed ASIC’s decision to grant the maximum disqualification period made pursuant to s 206F of the Corporations Act which was returned after finding Mr Grossman participated in phoenix activities deemed to lack commercial morality and blatantly disregard the interests of creditors.

Air Australia has hit the news recently due to the appointment of voluntary administrators to the airline and the consequences this has had on the business, its customers, suppliers and staff.

Whilst Air Australia is not a franchise, it still offers a good case study for examining financial distress in the operation of a business and considering options that may be available.

This update considers what are indicators of financial distress and offers tips both for franchisors and franchisees in assessing developing situations and options for moving forward.

The Federal Government has introduced the Corporations Amendments (Similar Names) Bill 2012 which will be directed at companies that engage in ‘phoenix’-related activities through imposing personal liability on directors.  

The Bill seeks to impose liability for payments on the director behind the failed company to ensure they do not exploit the concept of limited liability. These measures rely on the notion that many phoenix companies use similar trading names as the company that was liquidated.  

When a company is deregistered, it ceases to exist.[1] So what happens when a person has a genuine claim against that company but fails to commence proceedings before it is deregistered?

Update: Re CMI Industrial Pty Ltd (In Liq); Byrnes & Ors v CMI Limited [2015] QSC 96

Receivers do not have to distribute profits from the sale of inventory acquired by them during their appointment to priority creditors.

The question of whether priority creditors have a statutory entitlement to receivers’ inventory trading profit has largely been left unanswered until the decision handed down by Justice Mullins on 27 April 2015. 

The point at which a company becomes insolvent is not always clear. The Courts will consider “various indicia of insolvency”, including the company’s ability to raise further capital and access to alternative finance. In some situations, a director or related entity may be willing and able to contribute funds to the company to allow it to pay its debts. This can affect whether a company is viewed as solvent or not. Once insolvency is reasonably suspected, directors must prevent the company from incurring further debts or risk being held personally liable for the debts incurred.

Directors of an insolvent company face a strict duty not to allow their company to trade whilst insolvent. Whilst there are exceptions and defences available for directors, the recent case of Smith v Bone [2015] FCA 319 demonstrates that:

a director will not easily be excused, especially where they fail to seek advice on the company’s solvency in circumstances which would warrant such an enquiry; and that directors should not assume that simply entering into certain arrangements with creditors is enough to prevent them being liable for insolvent trading.

There are circumstances where a liquidator may approach the Court concerned that their position in future proceedings may be weakened if the matters they put before the Court in current proceedings are revealed. In an appropriate case the Court will make a non-publication order to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice. The recent case of Australian Securities and Investment Commission v Piggott Wood & Baker (a firm) [2015] FCA 18 examined in what circumstances a non-publication order is necessary.

BACKGROUND

Property acquired by a bankrupt after the date of bankruptcy becomes property that is divisible amongst the bankrupts’ creditors. However, case law supports the conclusion that after-acquired income remains vested in the bankrupt. The question then becomes: what happens to property that is purchased by the bankrupt with after-acquired income? This question was considered in the recent case of De Santis v Aravanis [2014] FCA 1243.

Background