Introduction

In the latest episode in one of Australia's most complex and lengthy commercial disputes, the Western Australia Court of Appeal recently dismissed an appeal by a syndicate of banks (the Banks) from a decision in favour of the liquidators of the Bell Group (the Group): Westpac Banking Corporation v The Bell Group Limited (in liquidation) [No 3] [2012] WASCA 157.

ASIC’s new administrative powers to wind up companies strengthens the remedial measures that can be taken against business operators attempting to avoid liabilities by abandoning companies and should help employees access their entitlements.

The Corporations Amendment (Phoenixing and Other Measures) Act 2012 (Cth) (Act) will commence on 1 July 2012. 

While the winding up of a company is a last resort in the context of shareholder oppression, the discretion to order a winding up will be exercised by the Courts if the circumstances dictate that it is the most appropriate remedy, such as where it will provide finality and certainty for the shareholders without undermining the value of the company’s projects to a potential purchaser on winding up.

The proposed scaling back of directors' liability provisions is good news for insolvency practitioners.

In good news for insolvency practitioners, the NSW Government formally adopted the Council of Australian Governments guidelines on "Personal Liability for Corporate Fault" as NSW policy on 31 July 2012 .

What are the "Personal Liability for Corporate Fault" guidelines?

After 448 days in court, over 85,000 documents and more than 10 judgments, a special bench of the Western Australian Court of Appeal handed down its decision in Westpac Banking Corporation v The Bell Group Ltd (in liq) (No.3) [2012] WASCA 157 (Bell Appeal Decision). The Bell Appeal Decision raises issues relating to the integrity of transactions with companies facing insolvency, which may create serious liability issues for company directors and lenders alike.  

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.

In Peter Grossman v Australian Securities and Investment Commission [2011] AATA 6, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal upheld a 5 year disqualification period against former director Mr Grossman who was at the helm of 3 companies that met financial demise. The Tribunal affirmed ASIC’s decision to grant the maximum disqualification period made pursuant to s 206F of the Corporations Act which was returned after finding Mr Grossman participated in phoenix activities deemed to lack commercial morality and blatantly disregard the interests of creditors.

We recently released an e-alert on the law reforms on directors’ derivative liability. Although not directly part of the derivative liability reforms, the close of 2011 and the first half of 2012 has seen a variety of exposure drafts, submissions, and parliamentary jostling over another key area of directors’ liability – the Federal Government’s law reforms to counter phoenix activities.

Under section 596B of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act), liquidators and other eligible applicants can apply to the Court for orders to examine certain persons in connection with the affairs of a corporation. Under section 596C, the affidavit in support is not available for inspection unless a court otherwise orders.

In the case of Sutherland v Pascoe; Re Matrix Group Ltd(as trustee for the Matrix Group Unit Trust (in liq)) [2012] FCA 453, the Federal Court granted examinees access and discussed the applicable principles.

At the end of 2011, the Federal Government introduced two draft Bills directed at clamping down on companies that engage in “phoenix” activity.