Corporate ventures are usually founded with the very best intentions, but as matters unfold disputes between investors are all too common.

The legal steps to resolve such disputes and assert control over a company can be complex and arduous.

However, there are good reasons for this due process, and it cannot be circumvented.

As part of its COVID-19 economic response package, the Federal Government recently introduced a temporary ‘safe harbour’ for directors from personal liability for a company’s insolvent trading, which will apply for a period of six months from 25 March 2020.

If ever there were times challenging enough for boards to be considering the financial lifeline that is safe harbour from insolvent trading, these are they.

On a daily basis we are reading news of businesses having to shut down and lay off employees and seeing footage of lengthy Centrelink queues. Boards are working harder than ever to govern their organisations in incredibly uncertain times.

As part of the its efforts to stem the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the Australian economy, the Federal Government has recently introduced a number of ‘safety net’ provisions designed to avoid financially distressed individuals and companies being forced into, respectively, bankruptcy and liquidation.

The objective is to allow them to continue trading where possible.

The reforms

THE ISSUE

In a recent judgment, i.e., on 17 January 2020, the Indian appellate insolvency tribunal, namely, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) held in M. Ravindranath Reddy v. G. Kishan, that the lease of immovable property cannot be considered as supply of goods or rendering any services and therefore the due amount cannot fall within the definition of operational debt under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code).

In the winter of 2015, the Indian Legislature sought to tackle the persistent problem of bad debts affecting Indian financial institutions and trade creditors by enacting the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”), which was finally notified in May 2016. The key purpose of the enactment was to consolidate and amend the laws relating to reorganization and insolvency resolution of corporate persons, partnership firms and individuals in a time bound manner for maximization of value of assets of such persons / entities. 

A recent Federal Court decision puts administrators on notice that they must carefully consider the consequences of dealing with other people’s assets.

The decision of Justice Perram in White, in the matter of Mossgreen Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) [2018] FCA 471, highlights the care that administrators must take when administering property outside the scope of their authority.

In Mossgreen, administrators were appointed to a company that conducted a business that ran an auction house and gallery.

The Victorian Court of Appeal decides that the Corporations Act priority regime does apply to trading trusts.

The law is now clear. Or is it?

For the last two years and six days, insolvency practitioners and other stakeholders involved in the liquidation of trading trusts have been frustrated by what should be a very straightforward question.

If the company in liquidation carries on business through a trust structure, as many do, what is the order of priorities that the liquidator must apply when making distributions to creditors?

It is common practice for company contracts to contain clauses, known as “ipso facto” clauses, which terminate or amend the contract (e.g. by accelerating payments) merely because a company has entered into a formal insolvency process.

On 28 March 2017, the Federal Government released draft reform legislation to Australia’s insolvency laws to promote a culture of entrepreneurship and help reduce the stigma associated with business failure.

The reforms, known as ‘safe-harbour’ provisions propose changes to directors’ personal liability for insolvent trading under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act).

Background