While the High Court has provided some clarity on the operation of the statutory priority regime, insolvency practitioners will still need to tread carefully when dealing with corporate trustees.
For insolvency practitioners who need clarity on how receivers and/or liquidators should pay, out of trust assets, priority employee claims arising from trust liabilities, the High Court's decision in Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts Australia Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth of Australia & Ors [2019] HCA 20 (Amerind) is a welcome result.
For some time now, there has been uncertainty in Australian insolvency law about whether or not insolvency practitioners should apply the statutory priority regimes established by sections 433, 566 and 561 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) when distributing the assets of a “trading trust”. The decision of the New South Wales Supreme Court in Re Independent Contractor Services (Aust) Pty Ltd (In liq) [No 2] (2016) 305 FLR 222, and the myriad of cases that followed it, suggested that the answer was “no”.
The Federal Court of Australia rules that receivers appointed to a company in liquidation are entitled to pay employee entitlements and fees.
Australia’s corporate insolvency laws are in a process of significant change.
The latest proposed reform concerns the controversial practice of “phoenixing”. In recent months and years, phoenixing has attracted attention from a wide band of Australian regulators.
The Phoenixing Bill
The question in Pleash (Liquidator) v Tucker [2018] FCAFC 144 (29 August 2018) was whether financial documents of a discretionary trust ought to be produced for the purpose of a liquidator investigating the ability of an examinee (and former director of the company) to satisfy any judgment debt that may be obtained against him.
This week’s TGIF considers In the matter of MJM(WA) Enterprises Pty Ltd (in liq) [2018] NSWSC 944, where the Court approved a liquidator’s remuneration but deferred decisions about trust distributions until after the Re Amerind litigation finishes.
What happened?
The company operated two barbershops in Perth as trustee for a family trust before liquidators were appointed in May 2017.
Australia’s new ipso facto regime is now in effect. It stays the enforcement of contractual rights triggered upon the entry of a corporate counterparty into certain restructuring and insolvency processes. The regime will affect a broad range of contracts entered into on or after 1 July 2018; however, certain contracts and contractual rights have been excluded from the operation of the stay pursuant to statutory instruments which have just been issued.
Employers are being warned that the days of expecting taxpayers to cover staff entitlements for failed businesses may soon be over, with company bosses potentially being held legally liable for the business’ unpaid dues.
Brisbane employment law expert Michael Coates says employers need to know that under proposed new laws, unpaid wages from a collapsed business could be recovered from related business entities that are not insolvent in circumstances where it is just and equitable (that is, “fair”) to do so. However what exactly is “fair” is yet to be determined.
On 28 March 2017, the Australian Government announced its proposals to reform the law relating to insolvent trading, and the right to terminate contracts based on insolvency ('ipso facto clauses'). MinterEllison made a detailed submission on the proposals which can be found here.
A recent New York Timesarticle highlights what it calls a “tidal wave of business bankruptcies” that are coming due to financial fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic. A number of high profile businesses have already declared bankruptcy, including J.C. Penney, Hertz, J. Crew, Neiman Marcus, 24-Hour Fitness, Borden Dairy, and Pier 1 Imports. More are sure to follow.