Everyone loves a bargain – accordingly, there is a lot of interest when liquidators and other insolvency practitioners put a business up for sale. Purchasers jostle like shoppers in the Myer stocktake sale, trying to position themselves as the perfect purchaser. At the same time they try to convey their concern about the value of the business or assets – everyone expects a discount for a distressed business.

In brief

A recent decision by the New South Wales Court of Appeal in Buzzle Operations Pty Ltd (in liq) –v- Apple Computer Australia Pty Ltd [2011] NSWCA 109 provides useful guidance on the key aspects of shadow directorships and to what extent advices can be given by an interested party such as a financial accountant or a lender to a debtor without that interested party falling within the definition of "shadow director".

Background

In insolvency circles, the word "success" is definitely a relative term. Often it only means that a complete meltdown of the company's business has been averted, or that employees have at least received their statutory entitlements on their way out the door.

The ABC Learning Centre story has, however, definitely been a success by any measure – including some measures which are not generally part of the metrics of insolvency.[1] In order to see why this insolvency administration deal was both unique and uniquely successful, it is necessary to understand some of the background.

Law clerk, Myles Engelen, discusses the decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, in McGrath & Anor re HIH Insurance Ltd approving a proposal to use excess assets of some members of the group to fund claims by the group members.

On 24 November 2009, ASIC released Consultation Paper 124 which provides guidance for directors on their duty to prevent insolvent trading which is imposed by section 588G of the Corporations Act 2001.

The economic climate over the past two years has seen a growing number of corporate insolvencies. There is also evidence that directors, and particularly directors of small to medium size enterprises, do not fully understand their duty to prevent insolvent trading.

Key Points: The fact that you're a very big company doesn't mean you needn't follow the legal rules for the execution of documents.

Background

A large insurance company claimed to be a creditor of Ungul, a property developer. Ungul was in voluntary administration.

A meeting of Ungul's creditors was called for 11 June. The insurance company's solicitors contacted the administrator and said that:

Every director of an Australian company is under a legal duty to prevent the company incurring a debt when the company is insolvent (or where that debt will cause the company to become insolvent).

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission's (ASIC) new Regulatory Guide sets out four key principles which directors should follow to meet their obligation to prevent insolvent trading.

The Regulatory Guide also sets out ASIC's approach to assessing whether a director has breached their duty.

Background

Section 588G of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) imposes a positive duty on directors of a company to prevent insolvent trading. Due to the economic downturn, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) believed the market, which includes directors and professional advisors, would benefit from clarification as to what factors ASIC considers prior to commencing an investigation into insolvent trading.

Key Points: An administrator of a deed of company arrangement has been allowed to sell the company over a shareholder's objections.

The GFC has seen a significant rise in the number of corporate insolvencies.[1]

Many of those insolvencies have been the result of tighter credit, rather than a collapse of the company's business. It's no surprise, therefore, that there is a major appetite for the acquisition of distressed businesses and companies.

Key Points: All companies, regardless of their size or solvency, must ensure that they have appropriate systems for dealing with statutory demands.

In my last article, I looked at the use of statutory demands. Time now to go through the looking glass and examine the impact of demands on the companies which receive them.

First, a brief recap …