In this edition of Gilbert + Tobin's Corporate Advisory Update, we focus on key legal developments over the last month which are particularly relevant to in-house counsel.

The ACCC’s recommended merger reforms: a deeper dive

The ACCC’s recommended reforms have several significant implications for merging parties:

Treasury has released draft regulations and a draft declaration for public consultation. The regulations and declaration support the stay on enforcement of ipso facto clauses against relevant entities. Ipso facto clauses allow parties to enforce a right, and terminate or amend a contract, when their contractual counterparties have entered into formal insolvency, regardless of the counterparties continued performance of their obligations under the contract.

In this edition of Gilbert + Tobin's Corporate Advisory Update, we focus on key legal developments over the last month which are particularly relevant to in-house counsel.

Temporary COVID-19 Corporations Act relief to allow virtual company meetings and electronic and split execution extended to 22 March 2021

Legislation and proposed legislation

Government consults on proposals for technology neutrality in the distribution of company meeting communications

The Government has proposed a technology neutral mode of distributing company meeting notices and materials which aims to facilitate innovation and reduce economic and time costs for companies, while maintaining an appropriate level of shareholder engagement.

In this case, the High Court held that the proceeds of the sale of timber and land under a timber plantation scheme were not held on trust for investors by the scheme operators, with the result that they were available to secured creditors of the scheme in priority to the investors.  In particular, the High Court found that a trust will not arise without clear intention by the parties, and a court will not infer a trust simply because it thinks it is an appropriate means of protecting or creating an interest.  When establishing a managed investment scheme, parties shou

This case highlights that the fiduciary duty to avoid conflicts of interest in particular will be strictly adhered to, with questions of fairness or unfairness of the relevant transaction being irrelevant.  Directors are reminded of the need to take great care to manage potential risks when involved in transactions in which they are acting as director of more than one company.  In particular, directors should check the rules in the companies’ constitutions around conflict of interest and if there is any concern, disclose their interest and seek approval of the companie

The Court refused to declare an appointment of administrators invalid under section 447C of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) on the basis of a previous purportedly invalid removal of a director and alleged insufficient grounds to establish that the company was, or was likely to become insolvent.  This case illustrates the Court’s willingness to overlook technical anomalies in exercising its discretion under section 447C where the end result for the company would be the same, and a broad approach in assessing whether there are reasonable grounds to form a view that a company

The Court found that the appointment of voluntary administrators to a company constituted oppressive conduct under section 232 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) in circumstances where it was part of a clear strategy by the controlling shareholder to gain control of the company’s business, to the exclusion of the minority shareholders.  This case provides some useful observations on the operation of section 232, particularly around action by a parent company “of the affairs of” a subsidiary. 

This case serves as an important reminder that board appointments should not be taken lightly - even as a “personal favour”.  Directors should ensure that they are sufficiently abreast of the affairs of their companies and actively involved in their management.  An argument that a director was “not really involved” in management is unlikely to find favour when the company finds itself in strife.

This decision is a testament to the flexibility of schemes of arrangement in Australia as a means of effecting settlements with a company’s creditors as well as third parties such as the company’s insurers. The Federal Court also demonstrated its propensity to take a liberal interpretation of what constitutes a “compromise or arrangement” to enliven its jurisdiction to convene a meeting of creditors for the purpose of considering a proposed scheme of arrangement.