The Australian federal government has announced that the temporary changes it enacted in March to the Corporations Act (Cth) (Act) concerning insolvent trading laws and the creditor’s statutory demand regime (Insolvency laws) have been extended to 31 December 2020. The changes were due to expire on 25 September.
Economic Fallout Continues
Since late March 2020 there has been a steady stream of voluntary administrators seeking the assistance of the court to limit their personal liabilities under the Corporations Act (Cth) 2001 (Act) by pointing to the social and economic disruptions and restrictions caused by COVID-19.
This quick guide summarises the duties that directors of companies incorporated in Australia are subject to, and how those duties change when a company is insolvent or at risk of being insolvent.
It also gives an overview of the personal risk to directors when a company is in financial difficulty.
This note is intended as an overview and should not be relied on as legal advice. Should you require legal advice in relation to your specific circumstances, please contact the Restructuring & Insolvency team member whose contact details are at the end of this note.
On the evening of Monday 23 March, 2020, the Australian Federal Government passed a broad range of stimulus measures under the Coronavirus Economic Response Package that is said to come into force immediately. The Coronavirus Economic Response Package is a temporary (six-month) relief package to combat the economic impacts of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak and to provide public health measures to prevent its spread.
The Australian Government has taken swift action to enact new legislation which significantly changes the insolvency laws relevant to all business as a result of the ongoing COVID-19 related developments.
Snapshot
It has been widely reported that, post Banking Royal Commission, the Australian Securities Investigation Commission (ASIC) will take a "why not litigate?" approach. As we foreshadowed in an article last month, this scrutiny will not be confined to the banking sector but is likely to extend to anyone subject to ASIC oversight.
In New South Wales (NSW), unlike in Victoria, claimants in liquidation have been able to make claims under Security of Payments Acts (SOPA). This has been recently reaffirmed in the case of Seymour Whyte Constructions Pty Ltd v Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) [2019] NSWCA 11 (Seymour), where the court doubled-down on this position and further explained why the NSW position differs from the position taken by the Victorian Court of Appeal in the infamous Faade Treatment Engineering Pty Ltd (in liq) v Brookfield Multiplex Constructions Pty Ltd [2016] VSCA 247 (Faade).
Without enforcement, an arbitration process and subsequent awards can be a pointless exercise. Freezing orders are an important tool in any dispute and a recent decision by the Supreme Court of Western Australia suggests that courts are willing to protect the enforceability of future awards.
In the recent case of Cash Generator Limited v Fortune and others [2018] EWHC 674 (Ch), the Court determined that non-compliance with the deemed consent procedure for nominating liquidators did not invalidate their appointment. The case provides a useful summary on the relatively new provisions governing the deemed consent procedure and welcome relief to Insolvency Practitioners (“IPs”) that a failure to fully comply with such provisions will not necessarily invalidate their appointment.
Brief facts and arguments
Australia’s corporate insolvency regime has undergone significant reform with the passing of the Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Enterprise Incentives No. 2) Bill 2017 (the Bill) through both houses of parliament.