In business it is not uncommon for a director of a company to be owed money by that company.

If the commercial relationship breaks down, the director may think it is an option to serve a creditor’s statutory demand on the debtor company.

However, recent court decisions demonstrate that issuing a creditor’s statutory demand is not a sure fire method of obtaining payment where the director is owed the debt personally or is a director of both the creditor and debtor companies.

Cases where statutory demands have been successfully challenged

Last Thursday's decision in the WA Supreme Court to allow a sale to insiders of a company subject to a deed of company arrangement will make the restructuring process smoother for administrators, who can now negotiate with a wider pool of potential purchasers, as Chapter 2E of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), which deals with related party transactions, will not apply (Mighty River International v Bryan Hughes and Daniel Bredenkamp as Deed Administrators of Mesa Minerals Ltd (Subject to Deed of Company Arrangement) [No 2] [2018] WASC 368; Clayton Utz acted for the deed administrators of Mes

Some 25 years after Harmer promised a faster, more efficient and commercial approach for dealing with failed and failing companies, Australia's highest court has this morning confirmed that creditors can contractually bind a company and all stakeholders to a moratorium extension via a properly formed holding DOCA (Mighty River International Limited v Hughes [2018] HCA 38; Clayton Utz acted for the successful Deed Administrators of Mesa Minerals Limited).

In the recent court decision of Trenfield v HAG Import Corporation (Australia) Pty Ltd [2018] QDC 107, the liquidators recovered unfair preferences from a retention of title creditor who argued it was a secured creditor.

The issues

In the recent decision of Heavy Plant Leasing [2018] NSWSC 707, a creditor successfully defended an unfair preference claim by establishing it did not have reasonable grounds to suspect the insolvency of the debtor company, who was a subcontractor in the earth moving business.

The most common way of defending a liquidator’s unfair preferences claim is to rely upon section 588FG(2) of the Corporations Act 2001(Cth); commonly called the ‘good faith defence’.

Commonly, a creditor being sued by a liquidator to refund an alleged unfair preference is owed money by the company in liquidation.

Liquidators argue that under section 553(c)(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Act) a creditor is not able to set-off the outstanding indebtedness owed by the company to the creditor to reduce any liability of the creditor to refund any unfair preference. Similar arguments are made by liquidators in relation to insolvent trading claims.

A snapshot of the court decisions

The updates to the Guidance Note provide useful guidance on disclosure requirements in the context of the safe harbour reforms but ultimately, the status quo continues.

The ASX has updated its continuous disclosure guidance for entities in financial distress to address uncertainty following the recent introduction of the insolvent trading safe harbour provisions into the Corporations Act. While the ASX has provided useful guidance, unsurprisingly, the position has not changed and directors must continually assess compliance with continuous disclosure requirements.

Just because a liquidator asserts you have received an unfair preference, does not necessarily mean you have or that there are no potential defences available to you.

It is common for commercial contracts to contain ipso facto clauses, which allow a party to terminate or modify the terms of the contract where the other party experiences an insolvency event. A concern addressed by the Government is that these clauses can prevent a financially distressed company from turning their situation around.

The reforms proposed to combat illegal phoenix activity range from light-touch through to more significant changes to the Corporations Act.