Corporate Debt Restructuring through a Company Voluntary Agreement
In the current economic climate most businesses will experience temporary or longer term cash flow pressure resulting in stressful trading and creditor pressure.
Since the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 were made in order to implement the European Union’s Council Directive 80/987/EEC, there has been an ongoing debate on how regulation 8 (7) (the bankruptcy proceedings exception) should be interpreted. Fortunately, a recent decision by the Employment Appeals Tribunal has gone some way towards clarifying the issue.
The implications of taking an appointment over an insolvent business which is regulated by environmental law can be far reaching. Environmental regulation has become more stringent and the sanctions for breach can leave the IP exposed to liability, including (amongst other things) costs sanctions.
The main environmental regimes referred to in this update are the contaminated land and water pollution regimes.
Under section 449E(2) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), the Court may review the remuneration of the administrator of a company on the application of the administrator. In the recent decision of Paul’s Retail Pty Ltd v Morgan, the New South Wales Court of Appeal considered the issue of whether an administrator could be precluded from access to the abovementioned statutory provision for the review by the Court of remuneration already determined.
The Facts
On 13 October 2010 ASIC released the National Insolvent Trading Program (NITP) Report, which sets out key messages, promoting greater director responsibility by encouraging directors to remain properly and fully informed about a company’s financial affairs, and to be aware of the implications of insolvent trading; and to seek (timely) professional advice from accountants, lawyers and insolvency practitioners.
After consulting over 1500 companies displaying solvency concerns, ASIC has identified several possible insolvency indicators including:
Important Features of this Judgment
- A Pt X Deed may create an equitable assignment of the rights, such that obligations continue after the Deed has come to an end.
- The Trustee of the Part X Deed of Arrangement can continue the proceedings initiated against One.Tel, despite the Deed coming to an end.
- Serves as a reminder that the enforceability of the debt does notaffect a debtor’s liability.
Facts
The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has released Regulatory Guide 217 (RG 217) to assist directors in understanding and complying with their duty to prevent insolvent trading under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the Act). It should be noted from the outset that ASIC regulatory guides indicate ASIC’s policy on specific issues, they do not have legislative force or constitute legal advice. Insolvent trading involves complex legal and accounting issues and it is therefore recommended that you seek professional advice to find out how the Act may apply to you.
Insolvency procedures involving companies are complex and generally take a long time to complete. There is plenty of jargon which adds to the confusion, whereas all that an unsecured creditor usually wants to know is how to make a claim for the monies owed to him by the company, to whom the claim should be made, how long it will take to decide the claim and whether there is a possibility of recovering any monies from a company which is obviously experiencing financial difficulties.
The underlying policy of the Insolvency Act 1986 is that all assets of an insolvent organisation must be made available for distribution amongst its creditors. However, the courts also have the power to prevent parties from contracting out of the statutory regime. This long established common law principle known as the anti-deprivation principle has been used by the courts over the years to strike down contractual provisions which attempt to do just that. The principle has received an airing in two recent High Court decisions.