The decision in In the matter of Independent Contractor Services (Aust) could mean more reliance upon fair entitlements guarantee funding provided by the Commonwealth in relation to the liquidation of trading trusts.

Introduction

Governments raise taxes to ensure the country can fund essential public services. Taxes are used to build and maintain public infrastructure such as roads and transport services and to provide education, a world class health care system as well as welfare assistance.

Paying taxes is part of our civic duty. Sometimes, however, taxpayers (whether individuals or companies) do not or cannot meet their obligations and it is necessary for steps to be taken by and on behalf of the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) to recover those taxes.

Released in April 2016 the Turnbull Government proposed significant reforms to Australia’s insolvency laws, as part of its National Innovation Science Agenda - designed to strike a balance between encouraging entrepreneurship and protecting creditors, and to reduce the stigma associated with business failure.

This week’s TGIF considers the decision in Hussain v CSR Building Products Limited, in the matter of FPJ Group Pty Ltd (In Liq), in which an ROT clause was held to be a “security”, defeating the liquidators’ unfair preference claim.

Background

On 18 July 2014, FPJ Group Pty Ltd (FPJ Group) was wound up in insolvency.

The assignment of debts is common in many transactions - from the sale of businesses to restructuring scenarios.

Assigning a debt requires written notice of the assignment being given to the debtor.  Under conveyancing legislation this notice can be given by either the assignor or assignee (for example, section 12 Conveyancing Act (NSW)).

Additional rules now apply for debts captured by the Personal Property Securities Act (PPSA).

If a director can exercise a right of set-off against a company in liquidation for a debt owed to the director or for a liability of the company to the director (which may be unascertained in amount or contingent), it may help to cancel out or significantly reduce the director’s liability to the company for insolvent trading.

Key Points:

A DOCA can extinguish claims under a guarantee, even where those claims arise following the DOCA's termination.

If the underlying debt has already been extinguished by a DOCA, can a secured creditor still enforce the charge? A recent case explored the role of section 444D(2) of the Corporations Act in this situation, with implications for parties seeking to rely on guarantees from companies that have been through a DOCA (Australian Gypsum Industries Pty Ltd v Dalesun Holdings Pty Ltd [2015] WASCA 95).

The Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) (the Act) provides a regime by which a debtor can compromise with his/her creditors outside formal bankruptcy. The provisions are found in Part X (Personal Insolvency Agreements) and Part IX (Debt Agreements) of the Act.

DEBT AGREEMENTS

In brief - Well drafted trading and credit terms can help your company avoid bad debts

Seeking director's guarantees, following your credit policies and including recovery costs, interest clauses, general security and retention of title clauses in your trading terms can help you manage cash flow and prevent bad debts.

Company liquidation often due to poor management of cash flow

Debts claimed in statutory demands must be due and payable to the creditor named in the statutory demand.

When disputing statutory demands it is common for debtor companies to argue an offsetting claim, so as to reduce or extinguish the amount claimed in the statutory demand.

For there to be a valid offsetting claim there must be ‘mutuality’, meaning that the legal capacities in which both the offsetting claim and the statutory demand debt are each claimed and owed must align.