The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has released Regulatory Guide 217 (RG 217) to assist directors in understanding and complying with their duty to prevent insolvent trading under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the Act). It should be noted from the outset that ASIC regulatory guides indicate ASIC’s policy on specific issues, they do not have legislative force or constitute legal advice. Insolvent trading involves complex legal and accounting issues and it is therefore recommended that you seek professional advice to find out how the Act may apply to you.

The law of "shadow directors" means that a person who effectively controls a board of a company, even though that person is not a director, may find himself being legally classified as a director of the company. That carries with it the threat of legal liability for the company's insolvent trading debts in the event that the company goes into liquidation.

We have been sending Client Updates since 2007 concerning the decision of the Australian High (Supreme) Court in Sons of Gwalia Ltd v Margaretic. Specifically, the High Court held that the damages claims of shareholders of insolvent companies for fraud and misrepresentation should be treated pari passu with the claims of all other unsecured creditors, rather than being treated as subordinated to unsecured claims as is the case in the U.S.

In response to a degree of uncertainty as to a director's statutory duty to prevent insolvent trading, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has released a consultation paper containing a number of proposals on this fundamental duty (Consultation Paper 124: Duty to prevent insolvent trading: Guide for directors). Importantly for directors, the consultation paper (which contains a draft Regulatory Guide) identifies the factors ASIC considers when deciding to commence an investigation in relation to possible insolvent trading.

Financial Assistance (1)

[UPDATE] Which government support schemes are in place? 

The Federal Government has set up a fund of initially EUR 4 billion by establishing financing companies. With the third 3rd COVID-19 Act, which was passed in the National Council on 03 April, the Federal Government is increasing the fund's resources to up to EUR 28 billion.

An additional financial aid package of up to EUR 34 billion shall consist of

Barely any region, sector or business remains unaffected by the exponentially growing pandemic. Stock market values, and thus also valuations for private companies, are plummeting due to the existing uncertainties.

Against this background, the question arises of how to deal with signed share or asset purchase agreements, if closing is still imminent. From the buyer's point of view, a valuation from the time before the COVID 19 crisis may now appear very expensive. The pandemic may trigger not only contractual provisions but also various legal remedies.

When disputes between shareholders escalate, one of the shareholders may be tempted to transfer the business to a new entity. Can the shareholder be stopped if he succeeds in obtaining a majority vote?

THE FACTS:

Summary

In a very recent avoidance law decision the Austrian Supreme Court held that shareholders of Austrian limited liability companies, even if they are only small minority shareholders, can under certain circumstances be under a specific duty to investigate the company’s financial situation because of their statutory information and book inspection rights. If they fail to do so, they may have to return received payments if challenged by the insolvency administrator (Supreme Court file no. 3 Ob 117/18d).

Legal framework

The Austrian Insolvency Code provides for the possibility to challenge certain disadvantageous transactions carried out by the debtor after material insolvency has occurred, especially if the creditor knew or should have known of its debtor's material insolvency. This risk of legal actions being contested is of particularly high relevance for shareholders who are also creditors of the debtor company, as the Austrian Supreme Court recently decided that shareholders' information rights would result in an increased level of due diligence.

Introduction

On 4 September 2017, Her Honour Hazel Marshall Q.C., Lieutenant Bailiff, handed down judgment in the case of Carlyle Capital Corporation Limited (in Liquidation) and others v. Conway and others [2017] Civil Action No. 1510, one of the most anticipated judgments in recent Guernsey jurisprudence, and the first time that a Guernsey court has memorialised certain fundamental legal principles affecting directors and the companies they serve.