In the recent decision of First Strategic Development Corporation Limited (in liq) and Anor v Chan and Ors [2014] QSC 60, the Supreme Court of Queensland considered the solvency of a company with no assets or formalised line of credit, but with a director who claimed to be willing to fund the $2.5 million that the company had committed to spending.

FACTS

Like the mythical bird that dies and then resurrects, phoenixing is the deliberate liquidation of a company to avoid paying tax, creditors or employees and then the ‘resurrection’ of the business through a different entity.

It is illegal and particularly prevalent in the construction sector. It’s time for the states to take action against phoenixing through better licensing of builders.

The recent Supreme Court of New South Wales decision of In the matter of Octaviar Administration Pty Limited (in liquidation) [2013] NSWSC 786 confirms that liquidators must notify all interested parties prior to seeking an extension for the period in which to bring preference actions.  For the first time, the Court has confirmed that the directors of the insolvent company are “interested persons” in cases where a liquidator intends to pursue the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) over potential preferential payments based solely on the potential for the ATO to

There have recently been a number of significant developments in relation to schemes of arrangement. These include:

• the Federal Court refusing to make orders convening a meeting of CSR’s shareholders to vote on a demerger proposal by way of scheme, on public policy and commercial morality grounds relating to CSR’s potential asbestos liabilities
• the Government’s corporate law advisory body recommending significant reforms to the scheme regime, and
• developments regarding ‘hostile schemes’.

Each of these developments is discussed below.

Introduction

The New South Wales Supreme Court has found a solicitor liable for facilitating unlawful ‘phoenix’ activity.1 Phoenix activity consists of transferring business assets out of an old debt-laden company (which subsequently goes into liquidation) to a new debt free company. The new company carries on the business of the old company; but the assets are put beyond the reach of the creditors of the old company.

Introduction

By unanimous decision in Bruton Holdings Pty Limited (in liquidation) v Commissioner of Taxation1, five members of the High Court have reversed a controversial decision of the Full Federal Court to confirm that the Commissioner of Taxation (Commissioner) cannot ‘leap-frog’ other creditors in a liquidation.2

Summary

In the matter of Maiden Civil (P&E) Pty Ltd; Richard Albarran and Blair Alexander Pleash as receivers and managers of Maiden Civil (P&E) Pty Ltd & Ors v Queensland Excavation Services Pty Ltd & Ors [2013] NSWSC 852

Overview

There is a recognised ambiguity in the transitional provisions of the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) (PPSA),relating to the issue of whether an ‘umbrella agreement’, governing the supply of goods on retention of title (RoT) terms entered into prior to 30 January 2012, will be an effective transitional security interest.

The Companies Act 2006 (Strategic Report and Directors' Report) Regulations 2013 (Regulations) to amend the structure of UK annual reports have been published and laid before Parliament.