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.

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:

The Winding-Up Committee (“WUC”) of the failed Icelandic bank Kaupthing hf. (“Kaupthing”) announced that Oct. 2, 2015 (“Transfer Bar Date”) will be the last date for the filing of Claim Transfer Request Forms (“CTRFs”) for transferring claims filed against Kaupthing. Parties to unsettled claims trades that require assignment of title must submit their CTRFs to Kaupthing’s transfer agent, Epiq Bankruptcy Solutions LLC, or Epiq Systems Limited (“Epiq”) on or before Oct. 2, 2015.

Glitnir hf. (“Glitnir”) has announced that as of the end of day on Sept. 11, 2015 (“Transfer Cut-Off Time”), it will no longer be processing Claim Transfer Request Forms (“CTRFs”) or issuing any Notices of Successful Transfers (“NOSTs”). Parties to unsettled claims trades that require assignment of title must submit their CTRFs to Glitnir’s transfer agent, Epiq Bankruptcy Solutions LLC, or Epiq Systems Limited (“Epiq”) before the end of day on Friday, Sept. 11, 2015.

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.