After 448 days in court, over 85,000 documents and more than 10 judgments, a special bench of the Western Australian Court of Appeal handed down its decision in Westpac Banking Corporation v The Bell Group Ltd (in liq) (No.3) [2012] WASCA 157 (Bell Appeal Decision). The Bell Appeal Decision raises issues relating to the integrity of transactions with companies facing insolvency, which may create serious liability issues for company directors and lenders alike.  

Why the Inquiry?

The NSW Government has announced an independent Inquiry into Construction Industry Insolvency in NSW.  Announced by NSW Minister for Finance & Services the Hon. Greg Pearce, the Inquiry will examine the extent and causes of insolvency in the NSW construction industry and what reforms are needed to minimise the adverse effects of insolvency on sub-contractors.

From 1 July 2012, all insolvency notices must be registered with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) on its new online register at www.insolvencynotices.asic.gov.au. Consequently, ASIC’s online register now serves as a comprehensive noticeboard of companies’ affairs in relation to insolvency. More importantly, it provides important information for creditors.

ASIC’s new administrative powers to wind up companies strengthens the remedial measures that can be taken against business operators attempting to avoid liabilities by abandoning companies and should help employees access their entitlements.

The Corporations Amendment (Phoenixing and Other Measures) Act 2012 (Cth) (Act) will commence on 1 July 2012. 

In May a Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services concluded its report into the collapse of Trio Capital Ltd which will have significant repercussions for financial lines insurers in Australia.

What distinguishes the Trio Capital collapse from the other major financial collapses in Australia in recent years, of Westpoint and Storm Financial, is that Trio involved a fraud. The enquiry adopted observations by Justice Peter Garling of the New South Wales Supreme Court describing the scheme as:

In Grapecorp Management Pty Ltd (in liq) v Grape Exchange Management Euston Pty Ltd [2012] VSC 112, Grape Exchange Management Euston Pty Ltd (Grape Exchange) managed a vineyard for Grapecorp Management Pty Ltd (Grapecorp). 

Receivers and employees are the greatest losers from a recent chain of court cases. Unless overturned on appeal or by legislation, the cases impose financial burdens on employees and administrative burdens on receivers.

At stake are employees' accrued leave entitlements and the statutory requirement to pay them once a company enters external administration. Employees of companies in receivership can lose entitlements they would ordinarily receive during liquidation depending entirely on the time at which a company enters administration or liquidation.

In light of the modern trend towards “pre-pack” arrangements as a legitimate restructuring solution, a recent judgment handed down in the Federal Court provides a timely reminder for insolvency practitioners that independence is paramount and liquidators can be removed upon the application of a creditor in circumstances where there is a perception of conflict.

While the winding up of a company is a last resort in the context of shareholder oppression, the discretion to order a winding up will be exercised by the Courts if the circumstances dictate that it is the most appropriate remedy, such as where it will provide finality and certainty for the shareholders without undermining the value of the company’s projects to a potential purchaser on winding up.

We recently released an e-alert on the law reforms on directors’ derivative liability. Although not directly part of the derivative liability reforms, the close of 2011 and the first half of 2012 has seen a variety of exposure drafts, submissions, and parliamentary jostling over another key area of directors’ liability – the Federal Government’s law reforms to counter phoenix activities.