Under the Corporations Act 2001, directors have a duty to prevent insolvent trading. They can be ordered to pay compensation, and can even be convicted of an offence, where their company trades while insolvent. The threshold is low in that the director need only have a suspicion that the company is insolvent for the duty to be engaged. Once triggered, the duty requires directors to take steps to prevent further debts being incurred by ceasing active trading or by placing the company into administration. If prevented from doing those things, the director needs to resign.

Introduction

It sometimes happens that stakeholders become disgruntled with the liquidator appointed to wind up the affairs of a company. So, what can be done?

There is power in s 473(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) for the court to remove (and replace) a liquidator. But, how hard is this process?

Discussion of recent Federal Court case

WHAT HAPPENED?

In April 2013, the liquidators of Akron Roads Pty Limited (in liq) (Akron Liquidators) commenced proceedings against three former directors including Trevor Crewe (an Akron Director) and Crewe Sharp Pty Ltd (an alleged de-facto director) (the Directors) for breaches of the insolvent trading provisions of the Corporations Act 2001 (the Act).

Voidable transactions When a company becomes insolvent, sections 588FA and 588FB of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act) empower liquidators to investigate voidable transactions, including unfair preference and uncommercial transactions as well as unreasonable director-related transactions.

The decision in Adhesive Pro Pty Ltd v Blackrock Supplies Pty Ltd [2015] ACTSC 288 reinforces the strict rule that an application to set aside a statutory demand must be filed and served within 21 days of receiving the demand.

Statutory demands are a common and useful tool for many unsecured creditors seeking payment of a debt.  Non-compliance with a statutory demand results in a presumption of insolvency and the possibility that a creditor can apply to wind up a company debtor.

A Singapore entity who had entered into a joint venture with an Indonesian entity brought suit in Singapore. The Indonesian entity owned shares in an Australian company. The Singapore entity made an ex parte application to the Supreme Court of Western Australia ("Supreme Court") to freeze the shareholding interests. The court granted the application, but the Court of Appeal dismissed the freezing order. The High Court reversed.

Key Points:

You can lead a director to the safe harbour, but you can't make him drink.

The Government's new approach to insolvency is long on rhetoric about risk taking and the need to remove the stigma of business failure.

However, it is short on detailed consideration of exactly why we have legal rules for corporate and personal insolvency.

Those rules aim to balance the interests of creditors against the need to encourage business start-ups.

On 7 December 2015, the Federal Government released the National Innovation and Science Agenda, delivering a range of new initiatives. Among the key focus areas, the Government highlighted insolvency law as a primary area overdue for reform. Whilst not introducing wholesale reforms to mimic the United States ‘Chapter 11’ framework, the targeted reforms seek to eliminate the stigma associated with business failure.

In December 2015, as part of its National Innovation and Science Agenda, the Federal Government announced a proposal to introduce a ‘safe harbour’ for directors from personal liability for insolvent trading.

The Australian Government has accepted certain recommendations of the Productivity Commission's long-awaited Report on Business Set-up, Transfer and Closure, in an attempt to change the focus of Australia's insolvency laws from "penalising and stigmatising business failure”, according to the Minister for Small Business and Assistant Treasurer, the Hon Kelly O'Dwyer MP.

It has expressed a willingness to legislate to introduce at least two main changes: