Key Points: An administrator of a deed of company arrangement has been allowed to sell the company over a shareholder's objections.
The GFC has seen a significant rise in the number of corporate insolvencies.[1]
Many of those insolvencies have been the result of tighter credit, rather than a collapse of the company's business. It's no surprise, therefore, that there is a major appetite for the acquisition of distressed businesses and companies.
Key Points: All companies, regardless of their size or solvency, must ensure that they have appropriate systems for dealing with statutory demands.
In my last article, I looked at the use of statutory demands. Time now to go through the looking glass and examine the impact of demands on the companies which receive them.
First, a brief recap …
The Government has reintroduced the Corporations Amendment (Sons of Gwalia) Bill 2010 into Parliament to give effect to the Government's decision to reverse the High Court's decision in Sons of Gwalia v Margaretic.
In brief
Courts have recently approved a number of means by which external administrators can realise value from insolvent agricultural managed investment schemes and deal with the rights of growers and sponsor creditors:
The law of "shadow directors" means that a person who effectively controls a board of a company, even though that person is not a director, may find himself being legally classified as a director of the company. That carries with it the threat of legal liability for the company's insolvent trading debts in the event that the company goes into liquidation.
As foreshadowed earlier this year, on 2 June 2010 the Minister for Financial Services, Superannuation and Corporate Law, Chris Bowen MP introduced the Corporations Amendment (Sons of Gwalia) Bill 2010. Associate, Justin Le Blond summarises the Bill.
The proposed amendments in the Bill will return the order of claims in a corporate winding-up to the situation that was commonly understood to exist prior to the Sons of Gwalia judgment. That is, priority will be given to creditors ahead of shareholders in granting access to the equity of an insolvent company.
Before 1993, the question of whether a creditor of a corporation being wound up had received an unfair preference from that corporation was determined under section 122 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth). In 1993, a new Part 5.7B was inserted into the Corporations Act to deal with voidable transactions such as unfair preferences. Since then two lines of divergent judicial authority have developed:
The Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) was amended to address the outcome of the High Court's decision in Cook v Benson1. It was held in that case that a trustee in bankruptcy could not recover amounts transferred from a retirement fund to another superannuation fund after the bankruptcy of the member as the amounts rolled over to the fund by or on behalf of the member were made in good faith and for consideration (ie the member had a right to receive benefits on retirement).
Introduction
By unanimous decision in Bruton Holdings Pty Limited (in liquidation) v Commissioner of Taxation1, five members of the High Court have reversed a controversial decision of the Full Federal Court to confirm that the Commissioner of Taxation (Commissioner) cannot ‘leap-frog’ other creditors in a liquidation.2