DOCSLIB.ORG

Insolvent Trading: Lessons from One.Tel

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Insolvent Trading: Lessons from One.Tel Insolvent Trading: Lessons From One.Tel Paul J Hayes Barrister-at-Law Owen Dixon Chambers West (Dever’s List) - Melbourne 39 Essex Street Chambers - London Insolvency Practitioners Conference 31 August 2006 PAUL J. HAYES BARRISTER-AT-LAW Insolvent Trading: Lessons From One.Tel A Case Study: The story of One.Tel… • The prospect of an allegation of “insolvent trading” is one which strikes fear into the heart of the most hardened company director, when the director is seeking to manage the affairs of a company in financial difficulty. • In support of this proposition, one need look no further than the reactions of James Packer and Lachlan Murdoch, when One.Tel spectacularly crashed in May 2001, with a deficiency of assets in the vicinity of AUD$240 Million. When it appeared that One.Tel may have been trading while insolvent, each of Packer and Murdoch (both non-executive directors of One.Tel), promptly claimed to have been “profoundly mislead” as to the company’s financial position (ie. solvency) by One.Tel Executive Directors Jodee Rich and Brad Keeling. • Following One.Tel’s demise, ASIC commenced civil proceedings in the New South Wales Supreme Court against Rich, Keeling, Finance Director Mark Silberman and One.Tel Chairman, John Greaves seeking orders that the 4 defendants be jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the liquidator of the company, in the amount of AUD$92 Million. The AUD$92 Million compensation sought represented the amount ASIC believed One.Tel lost between February 2001 (the date alleged by ASIC to be from when One.Tel continued to trade while insolvent) and May 2001, when One.Tel was placed into liquidation. • The case against Keeling was settled in 2003. He was disqualified from managing a corporation for 10 years and ordered to contribute to the compensation sought by ASIC. (Keeling went bankrupt in 2003). PAUL J. HAYES BARRISTER-AT-LAW Insolvent Trading: Lessons From One.Tel A Case Study: The story of One.Tel continued… • Greaves too settled the case brought against him in 2003 and he was disqualified from managing a corporation for 4 years and ordered to pay AUD$20 Million compensation to the Liquidator of One.Tel. Greaves entered into an arrangement pursuant to Part X of the Bankruptcy Act 1966, with the consent of ASIC. Greaves initially contended that he too was a victim of relying upon financial information provided to him by others, which was limited or inaccurate. ASIC proceeded against Greaves though as it was contended that the case against him was stronger than that against Packer and Murdoch, (and the other non-executive directors), by reason of Greaves’s position as Chairman of the company and an expectation that he ought to have exercised a greater vigilance over the company’s affairs, more so than the other non-executive directors, by reason of his role. • The remainder of the case brought by ASIC against Rich and Silberman has not yet been concluded. It was originally estimated to run for 3 months. It has now been running for 2 years before Justice Austin (NSW Supreme Court) and is currently forecast to run until February 2007. ASIC in addition to seeking compensation will no doubt seek orders that Rich and Silberman be disqualified from managing a corporation for at least 10 years. • Packer and Murdoch as non-executive directors have not been made subject to any claim of insolvent trading (civil or criminal) and in fact gave evidence on behalf of ASIC in the proceedings it is running against Rich and Silberman, who unlike Keeling and Greaves, are contesting the claim brought by ASIC in the NSW Supreme Court against the 4 defendant directors of the former One.Tel. PAUL J. HAYES BARRISTER-AT-LAW Insolvent Trading: Lessons From One.Tel Part 5.7B, Divisions 3 to 5 Corporations Act Overview • Company Directors (executive and non-executive) have a statutory duty to prevent a company from trading while insolvent by reason of s. 588G Corporations Act . • Defences which may be relied upon by a company director in response to proceedings brought against him or her are set out under s. 588H Corporations Act . • Remedies in civil proceedings brought against a company director are prescribed by s.588J of the Corporations Act . • Holding Companies have the same liability for the insolvent trading of a subsidiary, as a company director does in the ordinary course, pursuant to ss.588V-Y of the Corporations Act . • Criminal liability for insolvent trading (fraudulent conduct) is established under ss. 588K Corporations Act . PAUL J. HAYES BARRISTER-AT-LAW Insolvent Trading: Lessons From One.Tel Insolvent Trading Under s.588G – Part 1 Liability under s.588G arises where: • a person is a director of the company, when the company incurs a debt; • the company is insolvent when it incurs the debt, or becomes insolvent because it incurs the debt; • when it incurs the debt there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the company is insolvent or would become insolvent because it incurs the debt; and • the director is aware at the time the debt is incurred that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting the company is insolvent or where a reasonable person in a similar position in a company in the company’s circumstances would be aware. When is a debt is incurred? • In the case of ‘deemed debts’, the debt table set out under s.588G(1A) applies. Otherwise, the debt must be for a specific amount (ie. capable of calculation), it can be contingent (ie. in the case of a guarantee) and it must be voluntarily incurred by the company. PAUL J. HAYES BARRISTER-AT-LAW Insolvent Trading: Lessons From One.Tel Insolvent Trading Under s.588G – Part 2 Company Insolvent? • A company is insolvent if it is unable to pay its debts, as and when they fall due for payment, (s.95A), although a temporary lack of liquidity will not necessarily mean that a company is insolvent. Ultimately it is a matter of evidence. In some instances a company may be presumed to be insolvent where it has not kept proper records (s.588E(4) and s.286) and for an entire 12 month period, where on a winding up application it has been proved that during the 12 months prior to the date of the application, the company was at one time insolvent (s.588E(3)). In these latter cases, the presumption is one which is rebuttable by the director. (Note too “industry” and “economy” tests for insolvency. See: Manpac Industries Pty Ltd v Ceccattini [2002] NSWSC 330. See also generally: ASIC v Plymin [No.1] (2003) 175 FLR 124). Reasonable Grounds for Suspecting Insolvency? • The test is that of a director of ordinary competence who is capable of understanding the company’s financial status . More than mere speculation is needed – a positive feeling of actual apprehension of insolvency has been judicially suggested. Knowledge of Director? • Actual knowledge or the constructive knowledge of a financially literate reasonable director in comparable circumstances is required. PAUL J. HAYES BARRISTER-AT-LAW Insolvent Trading: Lessons From One.Tel Defences Four Defences are available to a Director under s.588H where there: • are reasonable grounds or good reason to have expected solvency; An expectation requires more than a mere hope or a possibility – a measure of well founded confidence in the company’s solvency would satisfy the test. • has been reasonable reliance on information provided by others; The One.Tel Defence (discussed below). • has been proper absence from management; and Illness or a ‘good reason’ is needed (s.588H(4)). • have been steps taken to prevent the incurring of the debt. Reasonable steps are necessary and include whether a view was taken by the director as to the appointment of an Administrator to the company’s assets and undertaking at the appropriate time. (s.588H(6)). PAUL J. HAYES BARRISTER-AT-LAW Insolvent Trading: Lessons From One.Tel The “One.Tel” Defence Reasonable Reliance on Information Provided by Others (s.588H(3)) • According to Packer and Murdoch, they were “profoundly mislead” by Rich and Silberman as to the state of One.Tel’s financial affairs in the months leading up to its demise in May 2001. • The defence is not available where non-executive directors have been passively acquiescent and have not undertaken their common law and statutory duties to the company by not actively participating in the management of the company and have unreasonably relied upon others to manage the company’s affairs. (See: Metal Manufacturers Ltd v Lewis (1988) 13 NSWLR 315 per Kirby P and ASIC v Plymin [No.1] (2003) 175 FLR 124 (Water Wheel ) per Mandie J). • The director must be able to demonstrate that he or she had reasonable grounds to believe and did so believe, that the person providing information as to the company’s solvency was competent and reliable, (ie. an executive director such as the CEO or CFO), that they adequately and properly discharged their role and that the information as to the company’s solvency was complete and accurate, so as to enable the director to make an informed and considered assessment of the company’s financial position. (See: Manpac Industries Pty Ltd v Ceccattini [2002] NSWSC 330 per Young CJ in Eq. See also: s.189 re director’s duties – reliance on information provided by others). • Fraud or dishonesty on the part of the person providing the information as to the company’s solvency to the director concerned would obviously fall within parameters of this defence. (See also: s.588E(6) which provides that there is no presumption of insolvency under s.286(2), where an officer improperly destroys or manipulates the company’s records without the director’s knowledge).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Corporate Insolvency. Relax?
    Corporate insolvency. Relax? The government’s relaxation of wrongful trading rules. This weekend past, Business Secretary Alok Sharma announced that wrongful trading rules are to be relaxed to remove the threat of personal liability for company directors so they can focus on keeping their business going. The relaxation will apply retrospectively for three months from 1 March 2020, meaning that a third of the period has already lapsed. With two months to go, what waits on the horizon for company directors? Where a company is in good health, Section 172(1) of the Companies Act 2006 imposes a duty on a company’s directors to act in the way they consider, in good faith, would be most likely to promote the success of the company for the benefit of its members as a whole. In times of trouble, however, the emphasis can shift from that of acting in the best interests of a company’s shareholders to protecting the company’s creditors. If the directors continue to trade in circumstances where they knew or ought to have concluded that there was no reasonable prospect that the company would avoid going into insolvent liquidation then they may be personally liable for wrongful trading under Section 214 of the Insolvency Act 1986. The court may then make a declaration for the directors to contribute to the company’s assets during its winding up or administration, to the benefit of the company’s creditors. In practice this would mean, for example, that, where a company running a shop that became unable to pay its rent (and thus would have no real prospect of avoiding an insolvent liquidation on the presentation of a petition presented by the landlord), if the company were to continue to trade (e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • Fact Sheet: Insolvency Reforms to Support Small Business
    Insolvency reforms to support small business The Government is making changes to our insolvency framework to better serve Australian small businesses, their creditors and their employees. The changes will introduce new processes suitable for small businesses from 1 January 2021, reducing complexity, time and costs for small businesses. The changes will enable more Australian small businesses to quickly restructure and to survive the economic impact of COVID-19. Where restructure is not possible, businesses will be able to wind up faster, enabling greater returns for creditors and employees. These reforms are the most significant changes to the Australian insolvency framework in almost 30 years. They form part of the Government’s JobMaker plan to ensure Australia emerges from the pandemic with a stronger, more resilient and more competitive economy. The need to give businesses and their creditors certainty is crucial to kick-starting confidence and activity as the economy transitions to the recovery phase. Our insolvency system needs reform An efficient and effective insolvency system is important in generating business dynamism which is needed to underpin our economic recovery. The system helps the movement of capital and jobs to more productive from less productive firms. It allows the efficient winding up of businesses, ensuring creditors and employees are paid fairly. The insolvency system is facing a number of challenges: • An increase in the number of businesses in financial distress because of COVID-19. • A ‘one-size-fits-all’ system, which imposes the same duties and obligations, regardless of the size and complexity of the administration. • Barriers of high cost and lengthy processes that can prevent distressed small businesses from engaging with the insolvency system early, reducing their opportunity to restructure and survive.
    [Show full text]
  • Insolvency in the Cayman Islands 2019
    GLOBAL PRACTICE GUIDE Defi niti ve global law guides off ering comparati ve analysis from top ranked lawyers Insolvency Cayman Islands Campbells chambers.com CAYMAN ISLANDS LAW AND PRACTICE: p.3 Contributed by Campbells The ‘Law & Practice’ sections provide easily accessible information on navigating the legal system when conducting business in the jurisdic- tion. Leading lawyers explain local law and practice at key transactional stages and for crucial aspects of doing business. LAW AND PRACTICE CAYMAN ISLANDS Law and Practice Contributed by Campbells Contents 1. Market Trends and Developments p.5 5. Unsecured Creditor Rights, Remedies and 1.1 The State of the Restructuring Market p.5 Priorities p.10 1.2 Changes to the Restructuring and Insolvency 5.1 Differing Rights and Priorities Among Market p.5 Classes of Secured and Unsecured Creditors p.10 5.2 Unsecured Trade Creditors p.10 2. Statutory Regimes Governing Restructurings, Reorganisations, Insolvencies and Liquidations p.6 5.3 Rights and Remedies of Unsecured Creditors p.10 2.1 Overview of the Laws and Statutory Regimes p.6 5.4 Pre-judgment Attachments p.10 2.2 Types of Voluntary and Involuntary Financial 5.5 Typical Timeline for Enforcing an Unsecured Restructuring, Reorganisation, Insolvency Claim p.10 and Receivership p.6 5.6 Bespoke Rights or Remedies for Landlords p.10 2.3 Obligation to Commence Formal Insolvency 5.7 Special Procedures or Impediments or Proceedings p.6 Protections That Apply to Foreign Creditors p.10 2.4 Procedural Options p.6 5.8 The Statutory Waterfall of Claims p.10 2.5 Liabilities, Penalties or Other Implications 5.9 Priority Claims p.11 for Failing to Commence Proceedings p.7 5.10 Priority Over Secured Creditor Claims p.11 2.6 Ability of Creditors to Commence Insolvency 6.
    [Show full text]
  • Singapore Insolvency Brochure.Indd
    CMS_LawTax_Negative_28-100.eps Advising the Board on Insolvency Risk in Singapore Risk, Resilience and Reputation Directors’ risk report It is crucial for company directors to understand how their duties change and augment in times of financial distress for the company. If these duties are not properly discharged, it can result in personal liability and/or disqualification from acting as a director. It’s equally important to be cognisant of directors’ Specifically, the fiduciary duties of directors duties if you represent a third party dealing with a of a distressed company may be a key factor distressed company, for example, a lender, supplier in determining: or customer. — The time available for key stakeholders to agree the terms of a financial restructuring before the This will help you anticipate how the distressed board has no real choice but to file for insolvency company may behave in its ongoing dealings and protection; and negotiations with you. — What the company may and may not be able to do pending a deal being agreed, during what is often described as the ‘twilight zone’. 2 | Advising the Board on Insolvency Risk in Singapore Impact of COVID-19 on corporate failures and directors’ conduct Given the uncertainties surrounding the COVID-19 — the trigger, therefore, is at some stage before pandemic, it is anticipated that the number of formal the company actually becomes unable to pay insolvencies in Singapore will trend upwards across its debts as they fall due, and the courts will numerous sectors as companies see a decline in their undertake a broad assessment of the surrounding financial position.
    [Show full text]
  • CB(1)678/98-99 Consultation Paper on Corporate Rescue and the Protection of Wages on Insolvency Fund (Treatment of Employees In
    CB(1)678/98-99 Consultation Paper on Corporate Rescue and the Protection of Wages on Insolvency Fund (Treatment of Employees in “Provisional Supervision”) Problem There are incompatibilities between some recommendations in the scheme proposed by the Law Reform Commission’s (“LRC”) Report on “Corporate Rescue and Insolvent Trading” and the existing labour legislation. It is necessary to resolve these incompatibilities if the Government were to take forward the relevant proposals. Comments sought 2. Comments are sought on how employees’ outstanding entitlements should be settled if the company which owes these debts initiated a corporate rescue procedure. Background Why Hong Kong needs corporate rescue (also known as “provisional supervision”) 3. At present, companies that get into financial difficulties may try to come to an arrangement with their creditors by means of a non-statutory arrangement or by means of the arrangement and reconstruction provisions under section 166 of the Companies Ordinance (the “CO”). However, there is no moratorium (that is, stay of proceedings) thus nothing in either procedure to prevent a single breakaway creditor withdrawing from the negotiations and presenting a petition to wind up the company, thereby sink any rescue arrangement. In this particular aspect, therefore, there is a clear deficiency in section 166 of the Ordinance. The Law Reform Commission’s proposal on corporate rescue 4. The LRC Sub-committee on Insolvency examined the issue in 1995 and circulated a consultation paper for public comments. In that paper, the Subcommittee recommended a statutory corporate rescue, also known as “provisional supervision”, to be introduced to facilitate a company in working out a voluntary arrangement with creditors.
    [Show full text]
  • An Introduction to Corporate Insolvency Law
    University of Plymouth PEARL https://pearl.plymouth.ac.uk The Plymouth Law & Criminal Justice Review The Plymouth Law & Criminal Justice Review, Volume 08 - 2016 2016 An Introduction to Corporate Insolvency Law Anderson, Hamish Anderson, H. (2016) 'An Introduction to Corporate Insolvency Law',Plymouth Law and Criminal Justice Review, 8, pp. 16-47. Available at: https://pearl.plymouth.ac.uk/handle/10026.1/9038 http://hdl.handle.net/10026.1/9038 The Plymouth Law & Criminal Justice Review University of Plymouth All content in PEARL is protected by copyright law. Author manuscripts are made available in accordance with publisher policies. Please cite only the published version using the details provided on the item record or document. In the absence of an open licence (e.g. Creative Commons), permissions for further reuse of content should be sought from the publisher or author. Plymouth Law and Criminal Justice Review (2016) 1 AN INTRODUCTION TO CORPORATE INSOLVENCY LAW Hamish Anderson1 Abstract English law provides three forms of insolvency proceeding for companies: liquidation, administration and company voluntary arrangements. This paper begins by examining the nature and purpose of insolvency law, the concepts of insolvency and insolvency proceedings, how insolvency practice is regulated and the role of the court. It then considers the sources of the law before describing the distinguishing characteristics of liquidation, administration and company voluntary arrangements. Finally, it deals with the sanctions for malpractice, transaction avoidance and cross-border insolvency. Keywords: insolvency, liquidation, administration, company voluntary arrangement, office- holder, wrongful trading, fraudulent trading, director disqualification, transaction avoidance Introduction This paper is a high level introduction to corporate insolvency law for students of company law.
    [Show full text]
  • Report Corporate Rescue and Insolvent Trading
    THE LAW REFORM COMMISSION OF HONG KONG REPORT CORPORATE RESCUE AND INSOLVENT TRADING This report can be found on the Internet at: <http://www.hkreform.gov.hk> OCTOBER 1996 The Law Reform Commission was established by His Excellency the Governor in Council in January 1980. The Commission considers such reforms of the laws of Hong Kong as may be referred to it by the Attorney General or the Chief Justice. The members of the Commission at present are: The Hon Mr J F Mathews, CMG, JP (Attorney General) (Chairman) The Hon Sir Ti Liang Yang (Chief Justice) Mr Tony Yen (Law Draftsman) The Hon Mr Justice J Chan Mr Eric Cheung Professor Yash Ghai, CBE Professor Kuan Hsin-chi Mr Andrew Liao, QC Mr Gage McAfee Mr Alasdair G Morrison Mr Robert Ribeiro, QC Professor Derek Roebuck Professor Peter Wesley-Smith Mr Justein Wong Chun, JP The Secretary of the Commission is Mr Stuart M I Stoker and its offices are at: 20/F Harcourt House, 39 Gloucester Road, Wanchai, Hong Kong. Telephone: 2528 0472 Fax: 2865 2902 E-mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.hkreform.gov.hk THE LAW REFORM COMMISSION OF HONG KONG REPORT ON CORPORATE RESCUE AND INSOLVENT TRADING ________________________________________ CONTENTS Chapter Page Introduction Terms of reference The need for an interim report on corporate rescue and insolvent trading Submissions on the Consultation Paper on Corporate Rescue and Insolvent Trading Confidentiality Model Bill Abbreviations Acknowledgements Report in English and Chinese 1. Provisional supervision The present position Other jurisdictions Benefits of provisional supervision The name of the procedure Recognition of foreign procedures Environment Insolvent trading 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Informal Workouts, Restructuring and the Future of Asian Insolvency Reform
    CENTRE FOR CO-OPERATION WITH NON-MEMBERS Informal Workouts, Restructuring and the Future of Asian Insolvency Reform Proceedings from the Second Forum for Asian Insolvency Reform - December 2002 ORGANISATION FOR CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT Pursuant to Article 1 of the Convention signed in Paris on 14th December 1960, and which came into force on 30th September 1961, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) shall promote policies designed: – to achieve the highest sustainable economic growth and employment and a rising standard of living in member countries, while maintaining financial stability, and thus to contribute to the development of the world economy; – to contribute to sound economic expansion in member as well as non-member countries in the process of economic development; and – to contribute to the expansion of world trade on a multilateral, non-discriminatory basis in accordance with international obligations. The original member countries of the OECD are Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States. The following countries became members subsequently through accession at the dates indicated hereafter: Japan (28th April 1964), Finland (28th January 1969), Australia (7th June 1971), New Zealand (29th May 1973), Mexico (18th May 1994), the Czech Republic (21st December 1995), Hungary (7th May 1996), Poland (22nd November 1996), Korea (12th December 1996) and the Slovak Republic (14th December 2000). The Commission of the European Communities takes part in the work of the OECD (Article 13 of the OECD Convention).
    [Show full text]
  • Guide to Directors' Duties and Responsibilities
    å INSOLVENCY Guide to Directors’ Duties and Responsibilities with specific emphasis on Business Survival www.onlineturnaroundguru.com v5 A Practical Guide for SMEs prepared by The Online Turnaround Guru version © The Online Turnaround Guru 2018 å INSOLVENCY The aim of this guide is to help you understand your duties and Contents responsibilities as the director of a company with particular emphasis on knowing if your company is Section Page insolvent and what to do if it is. 1. INTRODUCTION 3 If you have more pressing concerns 2. RESPONSIBILITIES 5 about your business than those covered by this guide then you should 3. WHO IS A DIRECTOR? 6 expect to find an appropriate solution 4. POWERS 10 or source of help on my website at www.onlineturnaroundguru.com. 5. DUTIES 11 6. LIABILITIES 13 7. INSOLVENCY 16 Insolvency 8. TRADING WHILE INSOLVENT 18 9. THINGS THAT DIRECTORS 21 SHOULD ALSO BE AWARE OF Directors’ Duties and Responsibilities with specific emphasis on Business Survival Insolvency INTRODUCTION They say that “when the going gets tough, the tough get going” and this is especially true if you are a director trying to steer your businesses through difficult times. 01. Sitting back and doing nothing although the directors remain is not an option if you are fighting responsible for the statutory for survival. Declining sales, obligations being carried out. increasing costs, bank repayments, HMRC arrears, lease and finance This Guide includes notes on obligations, redundancy costs and relevant legislation that you need a withdrawal of credit terms all to be aware of and as a director contribute to a shortage of funds need to ensure are complied with.
    [Show full text]
  • Report on the Protections for Employees and Unsecured Creditors
    COMPANY LAW REVIEW GROUP REPORT ON THE PROTECTION OF EMPLOYEES AND UNSECURED CREDITORS Contents Page Chairperson’s Letter to the Tánaiste ......................................................................................... 9 Executive Summary .................................................................................................................. 11 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 13 Request from Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation ................................................... 13 Chapter 1. General Legal Landscape ........................................................................................ 15 1.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 15 1.2 Employees and Unsecured Creditors ................................................................................ 15 1.2.1 Definition of Employees and Unsecured Creditors ........................................... 15 1.2.2 Entitlements of Employees and Unsecured Creditors....................................... 15 1.3 Priority of Payments for Creditors in Liquidations ............................................................ 16 1.3.1 Employees ......................................................................................................... 16 1.3.2 Other Unsecured Creditors ..............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Powering Ahead COVID-19 – Changes to Corporate Insolvency Law Powering Ahead COVID-19 – Changes to Corporate Insolvency Law
    Powering ahead COVID-19 – Changes to corporate insolvency law Powering ahead COVID-19 – Changes to corporate insolvency law Contents The COVID-19 pandemic has created significant challenges for all businesses. As the crisis abates, and we start moving into a new form of business as usual, the likely structural, fiscal and economic adjustments which the crisis is expected to cause over a longer period of time are vast. We summarize any relevant changes or proposals to corporate insolvency law proposed or enacted in reaction to the COVID-19 pandemic covering multiple jurisdictions. Jurisdiction Belgium China France Germany Hong Kong Ireland Italy Luxembourg Netherlands Singapore Spain Sweden UAE UK US We hope you find this useful and look forward to discussing further. 1 Powering ahead COVID-19 – Changes to corporate insolvency law Belgium The Belgian (federal) government issued a COVID-19 Decree providing a temporary protection for debtors that are affected by the COVID-19 pandemic and its consequences from their creditors by imposing a stay on the rights of these creditors (i) to enforce debts, (ii) to terminate existing agreements prematurely and (iii) to initiate bankruptcy proceedings. The COVID-19 Decree introduces a stay of enforcement in relation to all debts, irrespective of their date of incurrence or due date, but only until 17 June 2020 (at 11:59). Please note that the original date has already been extended and that a new extension is thus possible. This reprieve is granted to all companies whose continuity is in danger due to the COVID-19 pandemic and its consequences, and that had not stopped making payments on or prior to 18 March 2020.
    [Show full text]
  • GTA Industry Briefing Document
    GTA Industry Briefing Document Managing Insolvency In the Grain Industry Prepared by Malcolm Finlayson Finesse Solutions Pty Ltd Insolvency - Before and After Insolvencies occur frequently in the grain industry and businesses need to prepare for them. The best preparation is to attempt to avoid dealing with counterparties that are likely to enter insolvency but even with the best preparation it is likely that you will have to deal with an insolvent counterparty. This paper is meant to be a brief guide to a before and after situation with insolvencies. What is insolvency? There are two primary definitions of insolvency: 1. inability to meet liabilities as they fall due; 2. shortfall of assets to liabilities. The first is the more commonly used expression of insolvency but both are relevant. Unless there is support from another party the second definition will lead to an occurrence of the first. We will focus on the first as this is the most commonly used cause of an insolvency event. This tends not to be a short-term incident but an inability to meet obligations over an extended period. Being unable to meet creditor liabilities for one day due to cash timing is not an event of insolvency but it is cause for concern. Insolvencies are slightly different between companies and individuals. This paper is restricted to company insolvencies. An event of insolvency can also occur if the company is wound up or applied to be wound up. Other than the previously mentioned conditions, this usually occurs to cease trading or restructure when there has been full provision for liabilities and so it is not a risk.
    [Show full text]