Whether you are a John Donne, Ernest Hemingway or Metallica fan, the above clause rings a bell. Last week the Court of Appeal for Western Australia joined those “Riding the Lighting” and provided its own musings on “For Whom the Bells Tolls” down under. Rather than affirming that the bell tolls for the infamous Spanish guerrilla fighters or a tortured metaphysical poet, the Australian court provided a new answer: The Bell [decision] tolls for “would be” secured lenders.
ASIC’s new administrative powers to wind up companies strengthens the remedial measures that can be taken against business operators attempting to avoid liabilities by abandoning companies and should help employees access their entitlements.
The Corporations Amendment (Phoenixing and Other Measures) Act 2012 (Cth) (Act) will commence on 1 July 2012.
We recently released an e-alert on the law reforms on directors’ derivative liability. Although not directly part of the derivative liability reforms, the close of 2011 and the first half of 2012 has seen a variety of exposure drafts, submissions, and parliamentary jostling over another key area of directors’ liability – the Federal Government’s law reforms to counter phoenix activities.
The recent Victorian Supreme Court case of Grapecorp Management Pty Ltd (in liq) v Grape Exchange Management Euston Pty Ltd provided an interesting analysis of when set-off, pursuant to section 553C(1) of the Corporations Act 2001, may be claimed.
When can a set-off be claimed against debts owed to an insolvent company?
The recent Victorian Supreme Court decision of Grapecorp Management Pty Ltd (in liq) v Grape Exchange Management Euston Pty Ltd [2012] VSC 112 clarifies the application of set-off provisions for insolvent companies.
BACKGROUND
Grape Exchange Management Euston Pty Ltd (Grape Exchange) provided various services in relation to vines and grapes, pursuant to a Management Agreement with Grapecorp Management Pty Ltd (in liq) (Grapecorp).
Grape Exchange claimed that it had a right of set-off under section 553C of the Corporations Act.
The recent case of Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Bayconnection Property Developments Pty Limited [2012] FCA 363 is a rare example of the Court allowing an adjournment of a winding up application in connection with a tax debt pending an appeal.
Facts
Background: the Timbercorp Group
On 15 February 2012 the Commonwealth Government introduced the Corporations Amendment (Similar Names) Bill 2012.
Purpose
The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Corporations Act such that directors of failed companies can be jointly and individually liable for the debts of a company that has a similar name to a pre-liquidation name of a failed company.
The Bill itself is purportedly part of the Government’s election commitment from the Government’s Protecting Workers Entitlements Package announced in July 2010.
The Australian unit trust industry recently experienced financial difficulties. The formal legal process of handling those difficulties has revealed gaps in the Australian regulatory map.
This article highlights some of those problems and the Government’s response to them.
Background
Few now remember that Chapter 5C of the Corporations Act can trace its origins to the afternoon of 23 July 1991. For the past year, the unlisted property trust industry had been in meltdown. The value of the assets held by the industry had fallen over 20%. Investors were scrambling to get out, and collapses seemed imminent.