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:

This week’s TGIF considers a recent application to the Federal Court by liquidators of the WDS Group for a pooling order.

What happened?

This case concerned the WDS Group of companies.

WDS Limited (WDS) was a publicly listed company on the ASX with 11 wholly owned subsidiaries (together, the WDS Group).

The Australian Financial Review recently published an article regarding requests to the Australian Government to impose a moratorium on the insolvent trading laws to "help businesses during the economic downturn".

This week’s TGIF examines In the matter of Bytecan Pty Limited (in liquidation) [2019] NSWSC 1910, in which the Supreme Court of New South Wales considered the scope of the advantage to an indemnifying creditor available under section 564.

The facts

During the second half of 2019, it was generally accepted that the US/China trade war was the most likely macroeconomic event that would precipitate a global slowdown. Even then, given the enormous amount of ‘dry powder’ capital that was available in the market, the downturn, if any, was expected to be mild.

What makes a contract an unprofitable contract which can be disclaimed by a trustee in bankruptcy without the leave of the Court under section 133(5A) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) (Bankruptcy Act)? Can a litigation funding agreement be considered an unprofitable contract when the agreement provides for a significant funder's premium or charge of 80% (85% in the case of an appeal)?

Boensch v Pascoe [2019] HCA 49

The High Court has recently considered the question of whether, and in what circumstances, property held by a bankrupt on trust for a third party vests in the trustee in bankruptcy pursuant to s 58 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth): Boensch v Pascoe [2019] HCA 49. The decision was handed down late last year, providing further guidance for trustees following Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts Australia Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth (2019) 93 ALJR 807.

On 4 February 2020, the Federal Court of Australia considered the circumstances in which it might be said that a provisional liquidator of a company ought not be appointed as the official liquidator because of an alleged "reasonable apprehension of bias". The issue was ventilated before the Court in the matter of  Frisken (as receiver of Avant Garde Investments Pty Ltd v Cheema [2020] FCA 98.

Appointing a provisional liquidator

Liquidators are often in a position where they have information which might be subject to the Australian Privacy Principles (APP) and may need to use or exchange that information in performing their duties. Under the Insolvency Law Reform Act 2016 (Cth), liquidators are also obliged to send initial reports to creditors within tight timeframes and potentially in circumstances where they may have limited contact details for creditors.

Entering into liquidation can be a scary time for any company and its officers, even one which chooses to do so voluntarily. However, the directors, shareholders and creditors of a company entering into liquidation do not have absolute discretion as to who they may appoint as the liquidator of the company. Together, the Corporations Act and common law principles of independence regulate the eligibility of a liquidator to be appointed to a company, and to remain in the appointment.

Overarching eligibility