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
In August 2012 the NSW Government commissioned an Independent Inquiry into Construction Industry Insolvency. The Inquiry was asked to assess the causes and extent of insolvency in the building and construction industry and to recommend measures to better protect subcontractors from the effects of insolvency.
On 19 September 2012, the Norton Rose Construction and Engineering team presented a breakfast briefing titled: “Financial Distress in Construction Projects: What happens when the wheels fall off?”
This briefing identified the warnings signs of insolvency, what steps parties can take to minimise exposure, how best to respond to a party’s insolvency and the options available to prevent insolvency in the first place.
Gothard v Fell; in the matter of Allco Financial Group Ltd (receivers and managers appointed) (in liq) (2012) 88 ACSR 328
On 15 May 2012, Jacobson J of the Federal Court of Australia allowed an application by Receivers to be released from confidentiality undertakings so that use could be made of Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) examination transcripts.
Background
A recent Federal Court of Australia decision in the administration of the Hastie Group Limited (Hastie Group)1 illustrates a number of important points for administrators, secured parties and purchasers under the new regime established under the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) (PPSA). If you would like to discuss the implications of this case with any of our PPSA or insolvency litigation experts, please do not hesitate to contact us.
The facts
In our March 2012 Insurance Update we considered the potential widening of the scope for creditors to claim damages against a director personally for contravention of the Corporations Act 2001 (Act). The Supreme Court of Queensland awarded Phoenix Constructions over $1.2 million in damages against Mr McCracken for contravention of s 182 of the Act. This decision, a first of its kind, was appealed by Mr McCracken.
At the end of 2011, the Federal Government introduced two draft Bills directed at clamping down on companies that engage in “phoenix” activity.
On 5 October 2011, the NSW Supreme Court upheld an application pursuant to s 440D(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the Corporations Act) for leave to bring and continue proceedings against a defendant under voluntary administration.
In Re The Bell Group Ltd (in liquidation); Ex Parte Woodings [2015] WASC 88 (Bell) Pritchard J found that section 548 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) required: