The Corporations Act 2001 sets out a regime for the order in which certain debts and claims are to be paid in priority to unsecured creditors.
That's straightforward enough for a liquidator, right?
Unfortunately, matters are not that straightforward. In effect, there are two priority regimes under the Act for the preferential payments of particular creditors, each of which applies to a different "fund", and we've observed this has led to some liquidators being unsure of how to proceed – or even worse, using funds they should not.
New offences in the Corporations Act, a cab rank system for liquidators, and changes to tax laws have been put forward by the Australian Government in its consultation package of anti-phoenixing reforms released yesterday. Consultation closes on 27 October 2017.
Directors will soon be free to make decisions to trade on even insolvent entities, and incur debts in the ordinary course of business, with the passing of the Coronavirus Economic Response Package Omnibus Act 2020 last night and Royal Assent today. The Act is intended to encourage business to continue trading free of risk that insolvent trading laws – which prevent directors of insolvent companies incurring fresh debt – would impose a personal civil and criminal liability on them. There are also changes to statutory demands and debtor's petitions.
Agencies need to get ready for ipso facto reform by making changes to their contracts, funding agreements and contract administration practices.
Australian Government Agencies face constraints on their ability to terminate agreements where a contractor has entered into voluntary administration or certain other forms of insolvency procedure. The Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Enterprise Incentives No 2) Act, which amends the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth):
ASIC is becoming more serious and more active and will take action against directors if there is su cient reason to, so insolvency practitioners should consider all possible actions/recoveries fully in any report to ASIC.
A company's financial distress presents a challenge for its directors and officers of large and complex financial services companies and can raise a range of difficult issues, including potential liability for insolvent trading, which potentially exposes directors both to civil and criminal consequences under the Corporations Act 2001(Cth).
In a big 24 hours for restructuring and insolvency, the safe harbour reforms were passed by the Senate late last night, and anti-phoenixing reforms were announced this morning.
Safe harbour reforms
The safe harbour laws will commence operation the day after the Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Enterprise Incentives No. 2) Bill 2017 receives Royal Assent, with the ipso facto provisions set to commence on 1 July 2018 (or earlier by proclamation).
It is inevitable that companies will face periods of financial distress during their corporate lives. During these times, it is incumbent on the directors and management to seek to maximise the company's chances of survival and preserve value for stakeholders. Certainly it has not been uncommon for directors to use the threat of voluntary administration as a part of their stakeholder management strategy during these times.
To perfect a security interest by possession, a secured party must have actual or apparent possession of the property. A contractual right to possess is not enough.
We now have the first judicial guidance in Australia on the concept of "perfection by possession" under the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (PPSA) (Knauf Plasterboard Pty Ltd v Plasterboard West Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) (Receivers and Managers Appointed) [2017] FCA 866).
What is "perfection by possession"?
Mit außerordentlichem Engagement treibt das Bundesministerium für Justiz und Verbraucherschutz (BMJV) aktuell das Gesetz zur Abmilderung der Folgen der COVID-19-Pandemie im Zivil-, Insolvenz- und Strafverfahrensrecht voran. Weniger als zwei Wochen nach Beginn der weitreichenden Einschränkungen des öffentlichen Lebens und auch der Wirtschaft in Deutschland aufgrund der COVID-19-Pandemie soll es nun verabschiedet werden.
The court offers guidance on reversing lawful dividend payments and when directors need to take intoaccount creditors’ interests.
On 6 February 2019, the UK Court of Appeal published a judgment in BTI v. Sequana that will impact both creditors and directors of English companies.