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.
In brief
On 14 September 2010, the Senate Economics References Committee (Committee) released a report recommending reforms to Australia’s current insolvency regime (Report) in the following key areas:
- the regulation of the insolvency regime
- the registration of insolvency practitioners, and
- the remuneration of insolvency practitioners.
Implications
If the recommendations contained in the Report are enacted in legislation, stakeholders may be affected in the following ways:
The Government has reintroduced the Corporations Amendment (Sons of Gwalia) Bill 2010 into Parliament to give effect to the Government's decision to reverse the High Court's decision in Sons of Gwalia v Margaretic.
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:
This is the second of a series of articles that will examine the impact of the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 on specific business sectors. In this article Corporate Lawyer, Llon Riley deals with the impact of the PPSA on leasing or hiring equipment.
Before 1993, the question of whether a creditor of a corporation being wound up had received an unfair preference from that corporation was determined under section 122 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth). In 1993, a new Part 5.7B was inserted into the Corporations Act to deal with voidable transactions such as unfair preferences. Since then two lines of divergent judicial authority have developed:
In brief
Courts have recently approved a number of means by which external administrators can realise value from insolvent agricultural managed investment schemes and deal with the rights of growers and sponsor creditors:
Introduction
The High Court recently considered, in European Bank Limited v Robb Evans of Robb Evans & Associates, the nature and extent of a "usual undertaking as to damages" given by a receiver in accordance with Part 28, rule 7(2) of the Supreme Court Rules 1970 (NSW). In doing so, it overturned the decision of the NSW Court of Appeal to reinstate the trial judge's finding that the receiver was liable for substantial losses suffered by a third party deprived of the funds which were at the heart of the dispute.
Background