Background Facts
A company’s non-compliance with a statutory demand is the most common method of proving its insolvency in any winding up proceedings. Generally, if it does not make good the debt under the statutory demand within 21 days of service, the company will be presumed to be insolvent. What can a company do if it disputes the legitimacy of the debt?
The basics – compulsory winding up and statutory demands
What you need to know
The High Court has decided not to hear an appeal about the ability of the Linc Energy Limited (Linc Energy) liquidators to disclaim property of the company - this means the liquidators could disclaim that property, including any obligations under the specific environmental protection order (EPO) issued under Queensland's environmental legislation. The current position stands that the disclaimer notice had the effect of avoiding obligations of both the company and its liquidators under the EPO.
This week’s TGIF considers the decision in Mujkic Family Company Pty Ltd v Clarke & Gee Pty Ltd [2018] TASFC 4, which concerns a rather novel issue – whether a solicitor acting for a shareholder might also owe a duty of care to the company in liquidation.
What happened?
In 2015, the Supreme Court of Queensland ordered that the corporate trustee of a family trust be wound up.
The Commonwealth has released an exposure draft of the Corporations Amendment (Strengthening Protections for Employee Entitlements) Bill 2018 (Bill) for consultation which will make key amendments to the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act). The Bill strengthens the current provisions aimed to deter companies from diverting assets to avoid the payment of employee entitlements on insolvency. The proposed changes will impact:
Changes to Singapore's statutory regime for schemes of arrangement, which came into effect in May 2017, are aimed at placing Singapore on the map as an international debt restructuring hub.
Mesa Minerals Ltd was placed into voluntary administration on 13 July 2016 with a holding deed of company amendment (‘DOCA’) entered into on 3 November 2016. The DOCA’s stated objective was to provide sufficient time for the Administrators to conduct further investigations into the course of action in the best interests of the creditors. Clause 8 of the DOCA stated that there was no property available for distribution to creditors.
What you need to know
The High Court yesterday affirmed the flexibility of the purposes for Deeds of Company Arrangement (DOCA). In its reasoning, the Court placed very few limits on the use of what are commonly called "holding" DOCAs. It confirmed that a holding DOCA can be validly accepted by creditors to allow more time for an administrator to investigate the future options for an insolvent company.
This week’s TGIF considers the process that a liquidator may follow when a director fails to attend at an examination. It considers the appeal in Mensink v Parbery [2018] FCAFC 101, in which the Court set out the relevant differences between arrest warrants issued to require a director to attend an examination, and arrest warrants to answer charges for contempt.
What happened?
This week on Wednesday 12 September 2018, the High Court of Australia, by a majority judgment (3:2 Kiefel CJ, Edelman and Gaegler JJ concurring), handed down their decision in Mighty River International Limited v Hughes [2018] HCA 38. The majority of the Court held that holding DOCAs, which are deeds of company arrangement that provide additional time for administrators to undertake their investigations, are consistent with the object of Part 5.3A of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and do not contravene any provision of that Part.