In our previous bulletin we discussed the ‘safe harbour’ model in the Government’s suggested reforms to the current insolvency laws.

This bulletin considers another of the focus questions in the Proposal Paper: the voiding of ipso facto clauses relating to insolvency events.

Background

On 29 April 2016, the Federal Government released a Proposals Paper titled ‘Improving bankruptcy and insolvency laws’.

The Government is proposing these reforms to encourage entrepreneurship and investment. It hopes to reduce the stigma and detriment around failed business ventures, while still balancing the need to protect creditors.

The Productivity Commission published its final report on Business Set-up, Transfer and Closure on 7 December 2015. A copy of the final report is available here.

The final report recommends a number of changes to Australia's corporate insolvency laws and follows public consultation on the Productivity Commission's draft report released in May 2015.

Where a court has ordered the winding-up of a company, a shareholder may be able to have the winding up terminated under section 482 of the Corporations Act 2001.

Relevant factors

The power of the court to terminate a winding-up is discretionary. Relevant factors to be considered, which are not exhaustive, include the following:

If a director can exercise a right of set-off against a company in liquidation for a debt owed to the director or for a liability of the company to the director (which may be unascertained in amount or contingent), it may help to cancel out or significantly reduce the director’s liability to the company for insolvent trading.

In Allco Funds Management Limited v Trust Co (Re Services) Ltd [2014] NSWSC 1251, an inter-company loan transaction was challenged by a receiver appointed by the secured creditor to one of the companies. Common directors were involved in the transaction. The issue was whether the directors breached their fiduciary duties entitling the company via the receiver to have the transaction set aside.

The background to the case

A debtor company can seek to have a statutory demand set aside if there is a genuine dispute as to the existence or amount of the debt, or the company has an offsetting claim.

Because the threshold for contesting a statutory demand is relatively low, a creditor may decide it is better to issue the statutory demand for the undisputed portion of the total debt after making an appropriate allowance for the amount of the total debt in dispute or the amount of the alleged offsetting claim.

When a company is facing short term financial difficulties the directors or shareholders may decide to make a loan to the company to pay wages. 

Debts claimed in statutory demands must be due and payable to the creditor named in the statutory demand.

When disputing statutory demands it is common for debtor companies to argue an offsetting claim, so as to reduce or extinguish the amount claimed in the statutory demand.

For there to be a valid offsetting claim there must be ‘mutuality’, meaning that the legal capacities in which both the offsetting claim and the statutory demand debt are each claimed and owed must align.

On 25 July 2014 and 17 September 2014 respectively, Justice Brereton of the Supreme Court of NSW delivered two related judgments in Re AAA Financial Intelligence Ltd (in liquidation) andRe AAA Financial Intelligence Ltd (in liquidation) (No 2). The decisions deal with the evergreen topic of Liquidator remuneration and expenses.

Importantly, in fixing the Liquidators' remuneration, Justice Brereton adopted a "value" focussed approach, and discussed the relevance of considering matters beyond simply time spent multiplied by fixed hourly rates.