On 24 November 2009, ASIC released Consultation Paper 124 which provides guidance for directors on their duty to prevent insolvent trading which is imposed by section 588G of the Corporations Act 2001.
The economic climate over the past two years has seen a growing number of corporate insolvencies. There is also evidence that directors, and particularly directors of small to medium size enterprises, do not fully understand their duty to prevent insolvent trading.
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:
Introduction
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
Introduction
On Tuesday 10 June 2014 in the Australian Capital Territory Industrial Magistrates Court, an early mention in the Kenoss Contractors case was heard. This case includes a prosecution of both an organisation for allegedly failing to meet the primary health and safety duty and an officer for allegedly failing to exercise due diligence under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (ACT) which commenced on 1 January 2012. This case is ostensibly the first prosecution of an officer under the new harmonised WHS laws.
Summary
In an exciting week for insolvency, the Minister for Financial Services, Superannuation and Corporate Law has released a package of reforms to Australia’s corporate insolvency laws. This reform package includes:
Introduction
When the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency (Model Law) was introduced into Australian law in 2008, Australian admiralty practitioners expressed concern that the legislation which enacted the Model Law into Australian law did not take into account its potential impact on the right to arrest a ship in Australia. The concern was that the Model Law would prevent parties from arresting ships in Australia, if the shipowner or charterer was the subject of foreign insolvency proceedings.
If Departmental activity, debate in Parliament and media articles are an indication, the Federal Government’s much awaited response to the Ripoll Report is imminent.
Introduction
Incidents of insolvency in the construction industry are under the spotlight after the recent failure of a number of construction companies1. Insolvency events affect not only the insolvent company, but all of those involved in the project supply chain, from suppliers and subcontractors who have not received payment for goods and works supplied, to owners and developers who experience delays and increased costs to their projects.
Exposure draft legislation has been released which proposes amendments to the GST legislation to make it clear that liquidators and other representatives of incapacitated entities are liable for GST on transactions within the scope of their appointment.
Date of effect
It is proposed that the main operative provisions of the legislation have effect retrospectively from the commencement of the GST Act on 1 July 2000.
Background