Directors of Australian companies face significant personal monetary − and potential criminal and adverse professional - consequences if they allow the company to trade whilst insolvent.
Australian insolvent trading laws are harsher, and more frequently utilised to prosecute directors personally, than in many other jurisdictions including in the US and the UK.
Accordingly, frequent assessment of a company's solvency by its directors is crucial, particularly in financially difficult times, as are active steps to address any potential insolvency.
In brief
The Treasurer has today announced two new corporate insolvency regimes:
- a new "debtor in possession" restructuring plan process; and
- a new simplified liquidation process,
due to commence from 1 January 2021 and available to companies with liabilities of less than A$1m.
Restructuring Plan Process
The new restructuring plan process involves:
What a director wanting to enter the safe harbour must do
Directors in Australia have long had a statutory duty to prevent insolvent trading. The duty is engaged where:
In brief
There is now a divergence between New South Wales and Victorian authority on whether a company in liquidation may make a claim under Security of Payment legislation. The common law position in NSW is now that a company in liquidation can bring a Security of Payment claim. This decision will be rendered somewhat academic in NSW following enactment of legislation to come into force on a (currently unspecified) date in 2019 which has the effect of overriding this decision.
In brief
UNCITRAL has recently published its Model Law on Recognition and Enforcement of Insolvency-Related Judgments (MLREIJ), with a recommendation that nations adopt it into their domestic law. You can find a complete copy of the text of MLREIJ here (on the UNCITRAL website).
In brief
The courts were busy in the second half of 2021 with developments in the space where insolvency law and environmental law overlap.
In Victoria, the Court of Appeal has affirmed the potential for a liquidator to be personally liable, and for there to be a prospective ground to block the disclaimer of contaminated land, where the liquidator has the benefit of a third-party indemnity for environmental exposures.1
In brief
Baker McKenzie recently acted for the Foreign Representatives of Thai Airways International Public Company (Thai Airways), in successfully obtaining orders recognising the business organisation proceeding commenced by Thai Airways in Thailand as a foreign main proceeding pursuant to article 17 of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross‑Border Insolvency (the Model Law) which is incorporated into Australian law by the Cross‑Border Insolvency Act 2008 (Cth) (the Act).
What you need to know
The Federal Court – in a much-litigated wider contest about the ownership of the luxury yacht, “Dragon Pearl” drifting in an intriguing cross-border insolvency – has clarified the limitations for foreign entities and their insolvency appointees in pursuing action in Australia to un-wind antecedent transactions (by attempting to use the voidable transaction provisions of the Australian Corporations Act).
Insolvency and restructuring professionals need to know: