Receivers and employees are the greatest losers from a recent chain of court cases. Unless overturned on appeal or by legislation, the cases impose financial burdens on employees and administrative burdens on receivers.

At stake are employees' accrued leave entitlements and the statutory requirement to pay them once a company enters external administration. Employees of companies in receivership can lose entitlements they would ordinarily receive during liquidation depending entirely on the time at which a company enters administration or liquidation.

It has taken 12 months, but new legislative provisions are now in place to deal with the problems for representatives of incapacitated entities arising from Logan J's decision in Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v PM Development Pty Limited [2008] FCA 1,886.

The new provisions go beyond merely addressing the outcome of PM Developments. They also introduce new obligations for representatives of incapacitated entities as well as some concessions and protections.

Proving a transaction was to defeat creditors might be easier, but recovering assets under section 588FF of the Corporations Act which are not specifically part of the impugned transaction remains a challenge.

Externally-administered companies will have 24 months to comply with financial reporting and AGM obligations, if ASIC's proposal goes ahead.

ASIC relief defers obligations to lodge financial reports and hold annual general meetings for companies in external administration by 6 months. Companies in liquidation (other than AFS licensees) do not have to comply with financial reporting or AGM obligations at all.

Forum bias, along with some technical issues, are still challenges in cross-border insolvencies in Australia

Just over ten years ago, Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy in the US, which turned out to be one of the largest cross-border insolvency cases in history.

Last year also marks:

Some 25 years after Harmer promised a faster, more efficient and commercial approach for dealing with failed and failing companies, Australia's highest court has this morning confirmed that creditors can contractually bind a company and all stakeholders to a moratorium extension via a properly formed holding DOCA (Mighty River International Limited v Hughes [2018] HCA 38; Clayton Utz acted for the successful Deed Administrators of Mesa Minerals Limited).

As deleveraging to control transactions continue to be part of the legal landscape in Australia, we anticipate seeing further examples, particularly where the distressed company is a listed entity. 

The decision in In the matter of Independent Contractor Services (Aust) could mean more reliance upon fair entitlements guarantee funding provided by the Commonwealth in relation to the liquidation of trading trusts.

Key Points:

These three cases illustrate that strict compliance with legislative requirements continues to be imperative when serving statutory demands.

Despite what appears to be a fairly straightforward legislative regime, creditors' statutory demands appear to generate an entirely disproportionate volume of litigation in the courts. The drastic consequences of failing to comply with a creditor's statutory demand warrant very strict compliance by creditors with the technical requirements of the regime.

Six month extensions to convening periods should not be seen as a fait accompli, particularly if the administrator's application is opposed.

There is a commonly held belief that courts will readily grant an administrator's application for an extension to the convening period. This might have been true once, but it is fast turning into an urban myth, judging by two recent decisions in the Federal Court.