The Australian Federal Government has now passed temporary amendments to insolvency and corporations laws in light of the challenges COVID-19 poses to many otherwise profitable and viable businesses.
The Australian Federal Government has announced today (22 March 2020) that it intends to make temporary amendments to insolvency and corporations laws in light of the challenges COVID-19 poses to many otherwise profitable and viable businesses.
In particular, the government intends to relieve directors from the risk of personal liability for insolvent trading, where the debts are incurred in the ordinary course of business.
The Australian Federal Government has announced today (22 March 2020) that it intends to make temporary amendments to insolvency and corporations laws in light of the challenges COVID-19 poses to many otherwise profitable and viable businesses.
In particular, the government intends to relieve directors from the risk of personal liability for insolvent trading, where the debts are incurred in the ordinary course of business.
In this article, we focus on working capital and consider ways a business can seek to weather the storm and preserve all-important liquidity through this challenging period.
Practical Tips
Given the unprecedented challenges presented by COVID-19 globally, what can senior management do in order to manage and mitigate the risk to the company's financial health?
As we close the week which has seen the Government and the Bank of England publish details of their financial support package for business, the business community awaits the formal launch of both the Coronovirus Business Interruption Loan Scheme (CBILS) and the Covid Corporate Financing Facility (CCFF) next week.
CBIL scheme
The hair salon Regis announced recently that the company has entered administration. The news might not come as a surprise because the chain, prior to the company’s administration, was subject to a company voluntary arrangement (“CVA”) whose validity was challenged by landlords.
The joint administrator of Regis commented: “trading challenges, coupled with the uncertainty caused by the legal challenge, have necessitated the need for an administration appointment”.
On 22 August 2019, the Federal Court of Australia (FCA) held that it could make a request to the New Zealand High Court (NZHC) that there be a joint hearing of those courts in respect of applications relating to the pooling of various funds held by companies subject to Australian and New Zealand liquidations, respectively.
Such a ‘letter of request’ could be issued by the FCA to a foreign court in the context of an Australian insolvency process pursuant to section 581 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act).
Today the Government published draft provisions for inclusion in the Finance Bill which will amend the Insolvency Act 1986 and grant HMRC preferential status on insolvency. A status that was removed in 2003 but which will be re-instated (in part) from 6 April 2020.
Despite huge concern from the lending market, voiced in responses to the Government’s consultation on this measure, the only material change we can see is confirmation that preferential status will not apply to insolvency proceedings commenced before 6 April 2020.
The proposal to reinstate Crown preference in insolvency has met resistance from all angles; the insolvency profession, turnaround experts, accountants, lawyers and funders. But despite HMRC’s bold statement in its consultation paper that the re-introduction of Crown preference will have little impact on funders, it is clear following a discussion with lenders that it may well have a far wider impact on existing and new business, business rescue and the economy in general than HMRC believes.
In Swiss Cosmeceutics (Asia) Ltd [2019] HKCFI 336, Mr Justice Harris of the Hong Kong Court of First Instance declined to wind up a company despite it failing to establish a bona fide defence on substantial grounds. Mr Justice Harris commented on the difficulties presented by sporadic record keeping, and reiterated the principle that the burden of proof lies with the company to demonstrate a bona fide defence on substantial grounds, despite the existence of anomalies in the petitioner’s claim.
Facts