How should the liquidator of an insolvent trustee company ensure payment out of trust assets of the entirety of his or her remuneration and expenses?

Who should read this eBrief:

• Company directors
• Accountants
• Financial Advisors

Proposed changes to Commonwealth legislation could have a significant impact on the potential for transferring assets out of one company into a new company to avoid paying liabilities.

If enacted, the changes will give liquidators, ASIC, and the ATO new powers to prosecute culpable directors and associated persons.

Winemakers can run into significant tax problems after transferring their businesses to a company or trust structure. While income tax relief may be available on the transfer of the business assets, many winemakers and their accountants fail to realise that such restructures can eliminate or substantially reduce a winemaker’s entitlement to the Wine Equalisation Tax rebate. For winemakers who are heavily reliant on the WET rebate for profitability and cash flow, overlooking such consequences can be disastrous.

This week’s TGIF considers the Federal Court decisions in Carrello, in the matter of Caneland Holdings Pty Ltd (in liq) [2019] FCA 1144, and Carrello, in the matter of Gembrook Investments Pty Ltd (in liq) [2019] FCA 1143. The Court provided guidance as to how a liquidator of an insolvent corporate trustee should ensure payment of their remuneration and expenses out of trust assets.

Background

Directors are first and foremost responsible to the company as a whole and must exercise their powers and discharge their duties in good faith in the best interests of the company and for a proper purpose. The reference to "acting in the best interests of the company" has generally been interpreted to mean the collective financial interests of the shareholders.

A key part of the international scheme landscape

The use of creditors' schemes of arrangement is on the rise in Australia (as we discussed in our previous article - Update on Creditors Schemes of Arrangement in Australia). Along the way the Australian courts have made valuable contributions to international scheme jurisprudence. In this article we look at some of these contributions and then explore how Australian law might be further developed to remain a leading jurisdiction for creditors' schemes.

While the High Court has provided some clarity on the operation of the statutory priority regime, insolvency practitioners will still need to tread carefully when dealing with corporate trustees.

For insolvency practitioners who need clarity on how receivers and/or liquidators should pay, out of trust assets, priority employee claims arising from trust liabilities, the High Court's decision in Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts Australia Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth of Australia & Ors [2019] HCA 20 (Amerind) is a welcome result.

A recent Full Court decision is a win for directors who hold D&O insurance policies, as well as those seeking to bring proceedings against directors of an insolvent company – probably to the dismay of insurers.

This week’s TGIF considers a recent insolvent trading claim involving novel questions in relation to privilege against self-incrimination and the apportionment of liability between successive directors.

Background

The eagerly anticipated judgment in Amerind (Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts Australia Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth [2019] HCA 20) was handed down by the High Court yesterday after the High Court heard the matter in early February of this year. Mills Oakley acts for the Receivers who sought the directions given by the Court.

In three separate judgments, the High Court dismissed the appeal by Carter Holt Harvey, with the key findings as follows: