Where does liability under a Pensions Regulator Contribution Notice rank in an Employer's insolvency?

Introduction  

Another failed property developer has just been made bankrupt in Australia, this time with a difference – he was already bankrupt in New Zealand. Bank of Western Australia (Bank) v David Stewart Henderson (No. 3) [2011] FMCA 840 is another Australian cross-border insolvency case in which we have successfully tested the boundaries of the Cross-Border Insolvency Act 2008 (Cth) (the CBIA), this time with the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth).

In its recent decision in Belmont Park Investments PTY Ltd v BNY Corporate trustee Services Ltd and Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc,[1] the Supreme Court ruled in favour of investors, clarifying the limits of the anti-deprivation rule and holding that a commercially sensible transaction entered into in good faith and without the intention to evade insolvency laws should not infringe the anti-deprivation rule.

Background

HMRC is leading an increasingly tough stance against owners of businesses that have failed to pay their taxes before going bankrupt, says City law firm Wedlake Bell.

Figures from the Insolvency Service reveal that in the last year Bankruptcy Restriction Orders (or equivalent undertakings) were obtained against 443 bankrupts because of neglect of their business - a majority of which were alleged to have consistently failed to pay taxes to HMRC. This was an increase of 21% on last year and concern actions taken against sole traders and partnerships (Year ending March 31).

Introduction

New Zealand liquidators have had their powers recognised in Australia in a series of recent ground-breaking judgments.

These decisions in respect of Northern Crest Investments Limited, a New Zealand registered company listed on the ASX, demonstrate the broad powers which the courts are willing to provide to foreign representatives under the Cross-Border Insolvency Act 2008 (Cth) (the CBIA).

Obtaining powers of Australian liquidators

Everyone loves a bargain – accordingly, there is a lot of interest when liquidators and other insolvency practitioners put a business up for sale. Purchasers jostle like shoppers in the Myer stocktake sale, trying to position themselves as the perfect purchaser. At the same time they try to convey their concern about the value of the business or assets – everyone expects a discount for a distressed business.

In the recent case of BNY Corporate v Eurosail[1], the Court of Appeal for the first time considered how the 'balance sheet' test of corporate insolvency in section 123(2) Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) should be applied.

Section 123(2) IA 1986 provides:-

'A company is also deemed unable to pay its debts if it is proved to the satisfaction of the court that the value of the company's assets is less than the amount of its liabilities, taking into account its contingent and prospective liabilities.'

Background

Administration

Administration is a procedure by which a company can be reorganised and its assets realised whilst being protected by a moratorium from actions brought by creditors (explained below).  

Objectives

A company can be put into administration if the objectives of administration are likely to be achieved. These are set out in the Insolvency Act 1986 (the “Act”)4 as:  

Introduction

On 24 November 2009, ASIC released Consultation Paper 124 which provides guidance for directors on their duty to prevent insolvent trading which is imposed by section 588G of the Corporations Act 2001.

The economic climate over the past two years has seen a growing number of corporate insolvencies. There is also evidence that directors, and particularly directors of small to medium size enterprises, do not fully understand their duty to prevent insolvent trading.