The Australian Government has accepted certain recommendations of the Productivity Commission's long-awaited Report on Business Set-up, Transfer and Closure, in an attempt to change the focus of Australia's insolvency laws from "penalising and stigmatising business failure”, according to the Minister for Small Business and Assistant Treasurer, the Hon Kelly O'Dwyer MP.

It has expressed a willingness to legislate to introduce at least two main changes:

With the release of its much anticipated National Innovation and Science Agenda (the NISA), the Federal Government has committed more than $1 billion over the next four years to turning around Australia’s innovation performance.  

Australia’s poor record in translating research to commercial products and services is well known. We rank last amongst OECD countries for collaboration on innovation between industry and higher education and public research institutions.

The Australian government has announced a 'National Innovation and Science Agenda' to be introduced by the middle of 2017, which includes providing a defence to protect directors from liability for insolvent trading where restructuring advice is obtained in an attempt to turn around a company's financial position. The government has also released the Productivity Commission Report on 'Business Set-up, Transfer and Closure' which contains recommendations on how the defence will operate.

The Productivity Commission published its final report on Business Set-up, Transfer and Closure on 7 December 2015. A copy of the final report is available here.

The final report recommends a number of changes to Australia's corporate insolvency laws and follows public consultation on the Productivity Commission's draft report released in May 2015.

The Turnbull Government’s much-heralded ‘Innovation Statement’ was released yesterday. It contained wide-ranging statements on reforms aimed at fostering innovation across a number of sectors in the Australian economy.

One important reform area is in Australian corporate insolvency law.

Corporate insolvency law reform timetable

The Innovation Statement includes important content for the reform of Australia’s corporate insolvency laws. It is part of an ongoing reform exercise which has followed this timetable to date:

Taxpayers in Western Australia have been left to foot the bill after Jirsch Sutherland, liquidator for the Kimberley Diamond Company Pty Ltd (“KDC”), used a legal loophole to handball expensive mining leases back to the Department of Mines and Petroleum (“DMP”).

Care and maintenance costs for KDC’s Ellendale diamond mine amount to $100,000 (AUD) a month and environmental rehabilitation obligations are estimated to be $40 million (AUD). The DMP has been servicing these costs since KDC went into liquidation.

Today, by a majority of 3-2, the High Court of Australia in Commissioner of Taxation v Australian Building Systems Pty Ltd (in liq) [2015] HCA 48 confirmed that s 254(1)(d) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth) (ITAA 1936) does not impose an obligation on trustees (including administrators, receivers and liquidators) to retain sufficient moneys from the trust fund to pay tax unless a relevant assessment has been issued.

The Insolvency Law Reform Bill 2015 has been introduced into Parliament as part of the Australian Government's strategy to modernise and strengthen the nation's insolvency and corporate reorganisation framework.

This week’s TGIF considers a decision in which the Court held that an administrator who has unsuccessfully defended a proceeding may need to reinstate any remuneration previously received to satisfy the resultant costs order.

BACKGROUND

The deed administrator of a company subject to a Deed of Company Arrangement (DOCA) rejected proofs of debt submitted by a number of creditors.  The creditors successfully appealed against the rejection of the proofs of debt. 

The "running account" defence to an unfair preference claim is a fragile flower.  In a recent decision, the Queensland Court of Appeal has reminded solvent counterparties that suspension of a customer's trading account will probably break the "running account", exposing a solvent counterparty to greater unfair preference risk.

Need to know