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

Every director of an Australian company is under a legal duty to prevent the company incurring a debt when the company is insolvent (or where that debt will cause the company to become insolvent).

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission's (ASIC) new Regulatory Guide sets out four key principles which directors should follow to meet their obligation to prevent insolvent trading.

The Regulatory Guide also sets out ASIC's approach to assessing whether a director has breached their duty.

Background

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has released Regulatory Guide 217 (RG 217) to assist directors in understanding and complying with their duty to prevent insolvent trading under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the Act). It should be noted from the outset that ASIC regulatory guides indicate ASIC’s policy on specific issues, they do not have legislative force or constitute legal advice. Insolvent trading involves complex legal and accounting issues and it is therefore recommended that you seek professional advice to find out how the Act may apply to you.

The Australian government is working to significantly reform Australia’s current insolvency laws by mid-2017.

The reforms are intended to achieve greater likelihood of business preservation by introducing the flexibility to achieve real turnaround of businesses in crisis.

The proposed changes include:

In New Cap Reinsurance Corporation Ltd & Anr v AE Grant & Ors, the Court of Appeal has upheld a first instance decision that section 426 of the Insolvency Act (IA) can be used to enforce a foreign monetary judgment in insolvency proceedings. However, the Court acknowledged that where there exists a statutory framework for the enforcement of foreign judgments, in this case enforcement pursuant to the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933 (the 1933 Act), then enforcement under s.426 of the IA must follow the requirements of the 1933 Act.

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