The economic impacts of COVID-19 are unexpected and significant. While the Australian Government has announced a number of temporary reforms to address these impacts, there remains risk for directors of companies that are unable to pay their debts as and when they are due. 

Although the position is fast-moving and guidance is expected to be given in due course by the Law Society, it is presently understood that remote video conferencing technology such as Skype or Zoom could be used by a practising solicitor to administer a statutory declaration.

Today’s list of winding up petitions has been adjourned for a minimum of three months with petitions being re-listed for June, July and August. ICC Judge Mullen recited in his order that having considered the Protocol for Remote Hearings dated 20^th March 2020 and the LCJ’s Review of Court Arrangements due to COVID-19 dated 23^rd March 2020, he has concluded that the list “cannot presently be conducted remotely” and that “satisfactory arrangements to ensure safety cannot be put in place”.

The Government has announced significant temporary measures to ensure that our insolvency laws and processes do not expose companies and individuals to undue risk. This will hopefully avoid a potentially unprecedented wave of insolvencies. 

Key takeouts

The Government announced a six month suspension of insolvent trading laws.

The relevant debts will still be due and payable by the company in the normal way. 

Introduction

The Treasury Laws Amendment (Combating Illegal Phoenixing) Bill 2019 was passed by both houses of Parliament on 5 February 2020, with an amendment made by the Senate to review the operation and effectiveness of the legislation after five years accepted by the House of Representatives.

There is no doubt Australia has done well in its response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Many companies and individuals have been able to obtain some economic relief through a range of Government policies and initiatives, and some generous concessions in relation to financing arrangements, which may have otherwise crippled some businesses.

Section 239(5) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the “1986 Act”) limits the jurisdiction to reverse a preference to situations where “the company which gave the preference was influenced in deciding to give it by a desire to produce” the prohibited result. This involves a subjective enquiry which turns on the relevant actor’s state of mind.

To secure an order for the #winding-up of a Quasi-Partnership company on the Just& Equitable ground, is it necessary only to show that mutual trust and confidence between the shareholders/quasi-partners has broken down? Hardwicke investigates the recent case of Badyal v Badyal & Ors [2019] EWCA Civ 1644

Background

2018 was seen by many as the ‘year of the CVA’ and the year of the so -called ‘Retail CVA’ in particular. Such CVAs have been used in an attempt by companies operating in the retail and casual dining sector with burdensome leases to reduce the cost of their premises whilst continuing to trade.

2019 was widely expected to be the year in which there was a challenge by a landlord under s.6 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (‘the Act’) to the use of CVAs to force a rent reduction, without comparable cuts to other creditors and so it has proved.