On 5 October 2011, the NSW Supreme Court upheld an application pursuant to s 440D(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the Corporations Act) for leave to bring and continue proceedings against a defendant under voluntary administration.
The Corporations Amendment (Phoenixing and Other Measures) Bill 2012 (Cth) was introduced into Federal parliament on 15 February 2012.
The Bill proposes to amend theCorporations Act 2001 (Cth) and contains 2 key sets of measures:
One could almost be forgiven for thinking that nowadays delayed second creditors' meetings are just par for the course.
Applications to extend the time for the second meeting - often for months - have become quite routine, and are rarely (if ever) refused.
Some observers might thus wonder if we are losing sight of one of the objectives of the VA procedure - that it "should be expeditious".[1]
Although the Australian voluntary administration regime served as the model for the UK administration system, one notable difference has emerged between the two systems: pre-packs.
Pre-packs – the use of a statutory insolvency regime to implement a pre-agreed debt / corporate restructuring – have not really taken off in Australia. In the UK, of course, they form a significant proportion of all administrations.
On 15 February 2012 the Commonwealth Government introduced the Corporations Amendment (Similar Names) Bill 2012.
Purpose
The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Corporations Act such that directors of failed companies can be jointly and individually liable for the debts of a company that has a similar name to a pre-liquidation name of a failed company.
The Bill itself is purportedly part of the Government’s election commitment from the Government’s Protecting Workers Entitlements Package announced in July 2010.
The Federal Government has introduced the Corporations Amendments (Similar Names) Bill 2012 which will be directed at companies that engage in ‘phoenix’-related activities through imposing personal liability on directors.
The Bill seeks to impose liability for payments on the director behind the failed company to ensure they do not exploit the concept of limited liability. These measures rely on the notion that many phoenix companies use similar trading names as the company that was liquidated.
On 5 October 2011 Justice Barrett of the Supreme Court of NSW handed down a decision in Centro Retail Limited and Centro MCS Manager Limited in its capacity as Responsible Entity of the Centro Retail Trust [2011] NSWSC 1175 (“Centro”) where he found that the responsible entity of Centro Retail Trust would be justified in modifying the constitution of the trust without unitholder approval to a insert a provision permitting the issue of units at a price different to that provided for by the pre-existing provisions.
In the recent case of Dwyer & Ors and Davies & Ors v Chicago Boot Co Pty Ltd [2011] SASC 27, Chicago Boot claimed that certain payments made to it by two insolvent companies were not unfair preference payments, because of, amongst other defences, the purported application of a retention of title clause in relation to the supply of goods by Chicago Boot.
The Australian unit trust industry recently experienced financial difficulties. The formal legal process of handling those difficulties has revealed gaps in the Australian regulatory map.
This article highlights some of those problems and the Government’s response to them.
Background
Few now remember that Chapter 5C of the Corporations Act can trace its origins to the afternoon of 23 July 1991. For the past year, the unlisted property trust industry had been in meltdown. The value of the assets held by the industry had fallen over 20%. Investors were scrambling to get out, and collapses seemed imminent.