Key Points: The fact that you're a very big company doesn't mean you needn't follow the legal rules for the execution of documents.

Background

A large insurance company claimed to be a creditor of Ungul, a property developer. Ungul was in voluntary administration.

A meeting of Ungul's creditors was called for 11 June. The insurance company's solicitors contacted the administrator and said that:

When people are burdened with debt, they will sometimes resort to underhand tactics to relieve themselves of the consequences. One of the most common strategies is for the debtor to dispose of an asset, which would otherwise be used to pay his or her debts, for less than its market value. In consequence, there is legislation to protect the position of the creditors, who are, unusually, described as ‘victims’ in the legislation.

The law of "shadow directors" means that a person who effectively controls a board of a company, even though that person is not a director, may find himself being legally classified as a director of the company. That carries with it the threat of legal liability for the company's insolvent trading debts in the event that the company goes into liquidation.

On 25 January 2010, the United States Bankruptcy Court handed down its much anticipated decision in relation to an action brought in that court by two Lehman Brothers entities (the Lehman entities) against BNY Corporate Trustee Services Limited (BNY) (the US Decision).

It has taken 12 months, but new legislative provisions are now in place to deal with the problems for representatives of incapacitated entities arising from Logan J's decision in Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v PM Development Pty Limited [2008] FCA 1,886.

The new provisions go beyond merely addressing the outcome of PM Developments. They also introduce new obligations for representatives of incapacitated entities as well as some concessions and protections.

In these uncertain economic times, sellers often find themselves concerned about receiving payment for goods sold. More and more businesses are suffering cash flow problems often as a result of their own customers becoming insolvent. Demanding payment up front is simply not a commercial reality for most businesses. Businesses can find themselves living in fear of one of their larger purchasers reneging on payment due to a lack of cash flow or insolvency. The knock-on effects of such an occurrence may be devastating to the seller.

In a recent case in the Court of Appeal, the Court ruled that information on a web page under the heading ‘about us’, that contained advice to users to obtain further information, was sufficient to absolve a trade organisation from its ‘guarantee’ responsibilities.

Customers who use members of the Swimming Pool and Allied Trades Association (SPATA) can claim redress in the event that a member becomes insolvent. However, the redress applies only where the membership is a full membership, not an associate membership.

When a company becomes insolvent (as many have in the last year or so) one effect is that its shares will normally have nil or negligible value and the holder of the shares will therefore normally show a ‘book loss’ on them. Such losses can be relieved against taxable gains in certain circumstances.

A “pre-packaged sale”, or “pre-pack”, is an arrangement under which the sale of all or part of a company’s business or assets is negotiated with a purchaser prior to the appointment of an administrator, and effected shortly (perhaps immediately) after appointment. The administrator effects the sale without the business being offered to the open market.

With the economy in poor shape and personal debt still at high levels, the outlook is less than rosy for people who are facing insolvency. Even after the changes made by the Enterprise Act 2002, bankruptcy is still a difficult experience. This is especially true where the family home is the main asset of the bankrupt’s estate.

The trustee in bankruptcy will normally seek a possession order over the property so that it can be sold to satisfy the claims of creditors.

When deciding whether the possession order is to be granted, the court is obliged to consider: