Introduction

In December 2024, Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) released an updated version of Regulatory Guide RG 217. The guidance is designed to assist directors in complying with their duty to prevent insolvent trading. It sets out four key principles for directors to avoid insolvent trading, explains the safe harbour defence (which offers protection from personal liability), and clarifies ASIC’s approach to assessing breaches of duty and the application of the safe harbour defence.

Background

Crabb was the sole director of Courtside Recycling Ltd (Courtside). From 2014 to 2018, Crabb instructed Courtside's accountants to file VAT returns but only provided bank statements for one of the Company's three bank accounts. As a result, the VAT assessments significantly understated Courtside's true VAT liabilities for this period.

Following its own investigation and using transaction information gathered from Courtside's other bank accounts, HMRC issued amended VAT assessments. Courtside was unable to pay its VAT liabilities.

In Arab v Pan, in the matter of Pan (No 3) [2024] FCA 563, the Federal Court of Australia addressed critical issues concerning the scope and compliance of summonses for production in bankruptcy, which will also impact corporate insolvency proceedings and such proceedings in other common law jurisdictions.

Background

This case involved a winding up petition presented against Bridger & Co Ltd (the Company) on 15 June 2023. The petition debt arises out of a funding agreement between the parties. The Company applied for an injunction to restrain the advertisement of the petition on various grounds. The court declined to make an injunction.

Decision

The judgment helpfully confirms the position on three issues in these types of proceedings:

In FamilyMart China Holding Co Ltd (Respondent) v Ting Chuan (Cayman Islands) Holding Corporation (Appellant) (Cayman Islands) [2023] UKPC 33, the Privy Council has provided useful guidance about the interplay between an arbitration agreement and exercise of the Cayman court’s powers and discretion to wind up a company on just and equitable grounds.

This article considers the New South Wales Supreme Court’s decision to grant leave to proceed against non-appearing foreign defendants, which were in foreign insolvency proceedings.

There has been a significant growth of litigation in Australia where there is at least one foreign defendant. This is unsurprising given the growing number of international agreements under which the parties govern their contract under Australian law and expressly agree to Australian court jurisdiction, and the volume of global trade with Australia and foreign direct investment.

This case concerned the immunity of receivers from claims, where the Court had approved the sale of assets over which they were appointed.

Background

Following a dispute between two shareholders of Blackpool Football Club Limited (BFCL), receivers were appointed by the court over certain assets related to Blackpool Football Club, including the shares held by the majority shareholder in BCFL, Denaxe Limited (Denaxe).

During the marketing process, the receivers concluded the best way forward was to sell the assets as one complete package.

Understanding whether a company is insolvent, and the date of insolvency, is essential for directors and accountants who advise companies, as well as liquidators and other parties bringing insolvency-based claims. In understanding these issues, the analysis may need to go beyond establishing present-day liquidity – for example, what impact do long term-debts have on a company’s solvency and how are they used to prove insolvency? Which debts are relevant to the cashflow test? Whether a company is ‘able to pay all its debts’ as and when they become ‘due and payable’?

On 8 February 2023, the High Court of Australia (being Australia’s highest court) simultaneously handed down two highly anticipated insolvency law decisions:

The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (SoS) presented winding up petitions against Fabcourt Developments Limited, Clarkson Murphy Partners Limited, Hall Contracting Services Limited and Sentor Solutions Commercial Ltd (the Companies).

The SoS may present a petition for a company to be wound up where it appears that it is expedient in the public interest and if the court thinks it just and equitable to do so.

Background