Background: the Timbercorp Group

The statutory exemption can be refreshed each time a person signs a new contract, even if he/she continues to hold the same position.

Receivers of a failed company have been unable to convince the Federal Court that statutory restrictions on termination payments reduced the payout entitlement of a senior executive (White v Norman; In the Matter of Forest Enterprises Australia Limited (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (in Administration) [2012] FCA 33).

Background

The Corporations Amendment (Phoenixing and Other Measures) Bill 2012 (Cth) was introduced into Federal parliament on 15 February 2012.

The Bill proposes to amend theCorporations Act 2001 (Cth) and contains 2 key sets of measures:

The Federal Government has introduced the Corporations Amendments (Similar Names) Bill 2012 which will be directed at companies that engage in ‘phoenix’-related activities through imposing personal liability on directors.  

The Bill seeks to impose liability for payments on the director behind the failed company to ensure they do not exploit the concept of limited liability. These measures rely on the notion that many phoenix companies use similar trading names as the company that was liquidated.  

Introduction

On 26 November 2010, the Federal Parliament passed the Corporations Amendment (Sons of Gwalia) Bill 2010 (“Bill”). The Bill amends section 563A of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (“Act”) such that any claim brought by a person against a company that arises from the buying, selling, holding or other dealing with a shareholding will be postponed in an external administration until all other claims have been paid. The Bill has the effect of reversing the High Court decision of Sons of Gwalia v Margaretic [2007] HCA 1.

Statutory Demands pursuant to the Corporations Act are a mechanism available to creditors for the payment of debt. Upon the expiry of a Statutory Demand, the Corporations Act presumes that the company is insolvent and allows the entity making the demand to apply to the court for their winding up on grounds of insolvency.

The Government has passed amendments to the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and the Corporations Regulations 2001 (Regulations) to overturn the impact of the decision in Sons of Gwalia v Margaretic (2007) 231 CLR 160 (Sons of Gwalia) and reinstate the longheld convention that creditors’ rights take precedence over shareholders’ rights in the instance of a winding up.

What was the outcome of Sons of Gwalia?

In brief

A recent decision by the New South Wales Court of Appeal in Buzzle Operations Pty Ltd (in liq) –v- Apple Computer Australia Pty Ltd [2011] NSWCA 109 provides useful guidance on the key aspects of shadow directorships and to what extent advices can be given by an interested party such as a financial accountant or a lender to a debtor without that interested party falling within the definition of "shadow director".

Background

On 24 November 2009, ASIC released Consultation Paper 124 which provides guidance for directors on their duty to prevent insolvent trading which is imposed by section 588G of the Corporations Act 2001.

The economic climate over the past two years has seen a growing number of corporate insolvencies. There is also evidence that directors, and particularly directors of small to medium size enterprises, do not fully understand their duty to prevent insolvent trading.

Every director of an Australian company is under a legal duty to prevent the company incurring a debt when the company is insolvent (or where that debt will cause the company to become insolvent).

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission's (ASIC) new Regulatory Guide sets out four key principles which directors should follow to meet their obligation to prevent insolvent trading.

The Regulatory Guide also sets out ASIC's approach to assessing whether a director has breached their duty.

Background