The "true employer" question is one which frequently arises in insolvencies of corporate groups, and it also arises in solvent workplace dispute scenarios. Answering it, however, is often hampered by inconsistent or incomplete records and very divergent returns for employees, depending on the outcome of the question.
The COVID-19 pandemic and the associated lock downs have led to a global economic slowdown, and Australia has been no exception. GDP fell by 0.3% in the March quarter, and on 3 June 2020 Treasurer Josh Frydenberg announced that Australia was officially in its first recession in 29 years.
While the Australian Government was quick to provide a range of economic support measures – having already spent $289bn or 14.6% of GDP in an attempt to keep the economy afloat – Treasury expects Australia's GDP will decline by 0.5% in 2019-20 and a further 2.5% in 2020-21.
The Corporations Act 2001 sets out a regime for the order in which certain debts and claims are to be paid in priority to unsecured creditors.
That's straightforward enough for a liquidator, right?
Unfortunately, matters are not that straightforward. In effect, there are two priority regimes under the Act for the preferential payments of particular creditors, each of which applies to a different "fund", and we've observed this has led to some liquidators being unsure of how to proceed – or even worse, using funds they should not.
As we discussed in our July newsletter, the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (CIGA 2020) has introduced a new Restructuring Plan, which is similar to existing Schemes of Arrangement. In essence a Court can sanction a restructuring plan which binds a dissenting class of creditors, if that class would be in no worse a position than the most likely alternative.
This was an application by the administrators of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) Ltd for a direction under paragraph 63 of Schedule B1 IA86 that they be at liberty to consent to a request from the company’s directors to distribute surplus funds to the company’s sole shareholder.
The Court has granted one of the first Winding Up Orders under CIGA 2020.
The winding up petition had been issued on 1 May 2020, 8 weeks before CIGA 2020 came in to force, but after 27 April 2020, the date from which CIGA 2020 applies retrospectively. As a result, the petitioner could not have ensured that the winding up petition satisfied the requirements of CIGA 2020, as those requirements were not in existence at the time that the petition was presented.
The liquidators of a subsidiary company had submitted a proof in the CVA of the parent company. The proof was based upon a claim under section 239 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA86) that certain payments by the parent to the subsidiary had amounted to unlawful preferences of the company. The liquidators appealed against the decision by the supervisor of the CVA to reject that proof.
Following the Insolvency Service’s announcement that it will produce monthly (as opposed to quarterly) company and individual statistics for England and Wales, to assist the Government and the insolvency sector in monitoring the impact of COVID19, the results for July showed that:
The Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (BEIS) has recently issued a press release regarding proposed changes in the law to better protect consumers in the event that a company, and in particular a retailer, becomes insolvent.
Under existing law, if a company becomes insolvent but goods prepaid for are still in its possession, they may be considered as assets belonging to the business and can be used by administrators to pay off the company’s debts.
The Finance Act 2020 received Royal Assent on 22 July confirming the Government’s intention to restore HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) as a secondary preferential creditor in insolvencies. From 1 December 2020, HMRC’s claims for unpaid employer NIC, PAYE and VAT will rank ahead of floating charge holder claims and unsecured creditors, reducing the monies available for distribution to lower ranking creditors.