Bailing out the FEG : is the Fair Entitlements Guarantee (formerly GEERS) approaching its own fiscal cliff?

This article discusses what recent statistics and public reports reveal about the funding of GEERS (now the FEG) and its bottom line. The article examines (1) whether there has been a “blowout” in the scheme which guarantees the recovery of employee entitlements in liquidations and (2) what might be done to put the scheme on a firmer fiscal footing.

Demanding a change : time to act on statutory demands

The statutory demand procedure has been a part of our corporate law from its earliest modern formulations and it has been suggested, albeit anecdotally, that under the current regime, it gives rise to more litigation than any other part of the Corporations Act. Despite this there has been a lack of consideration of the underlying policy behind the procedure in both the case law and literature; both of which are largely centred on the technical aspects of the process. The purpose of this article is to examine briefly the process of the statutory demand in the context of the current insolvency law in Australia.

When should private property rights give way to the public interest?

Since Queensland Wire Industries Pty Ltd v Broken Hill Pty Co Ltd (1989) 167 CLR 177 it has been recognised that corporations with substantial market power are subject to special responsibilities and restraints that corporations without market power are not. In NT Power Generation Pty Ltd v Power and Water Authority (2004) 219 CLR 90 McHugh A-CJ, Gummow, Callinan and Heydon JJ in their joint reasons stated (at [76]), that s 46 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) (CCA) can operate not only to prevent firms with substantial market power from doing prohibited things, but also compel them positively to do things they do not want to do. Their Honours also stated (at [126]) that the proposition that a private property owner who declines to permit competitors to use the property is immune from s 46 is “intrinsically unsound”. However, the circumstances in which a firm with substantial power must accommodate competitors, and private property rights give way to the public interest are uncertain. The purpose of this Note is to consider recent developments in two areas of the CCA where the law requires private property rights to give way to the public interest. The first part of the Note considers two recent cases which clarify the circumstances in which s 46 of the CCA can be used to compel a firm with substantial market power to accommodate a competitor and allow the competitor to make use of private property rights in the public interest. Secondly, on 12 February 2014 the Minister for Small Business, the Hon Bruce Billson,released the Productivity Commission’s Final Report, on the National Access Regime in Pt IIIA of the CCA (National Access Regime, Inquiry Report No 66, Canberra). Pt IIIA provides for the processes by which third parties may obtain access to infrastructure owned by others in the public interest. The Report recommends that Pt IIIA be retained but makes a number of suggestions for its reform, some of which will be briefly considered.

Application to set aside statutory demand

In C & E Pty Ltd v Corrigan [2006] QCA 47, the Queensland Court of Appeal considered whether r103 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules applied to the service of an application to set aside a statutory demand under s459G of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). The decision provides analysis and clarification of an issue that has clearly been one of some uncertainty.

A review of Deeds of Company Arrangement

Deeds of company arrangement ('DOCAs') under Part 5.3A of the Corporations Act appear be something of a limited success. However, the use and outcomes of DOCAs raise legitimate questions as to whether the level of returns currently being achieved for creditors might be improved by legislative reform. The 2013 ARITA Terry Taylor Scholarship project entailed a review of a random sample of executed DOCAs effectuated between 1 August 2012 and 31 July 2013. This review was undertaken with the intention of producing a ‘snapshot’ of current trends and outcomes of the use of DOCAs in practice – ie, average (or typical) rates of dividends paid, what DOCAs customarily achieve, the profile of the companies executing DOCAs and the average duration of DOCAs. The purpose of this review was to empirically assess the use and effectiveness of DOCAs in order to inform the ongoing debate about the success or otherwise of Australia’s Part 5.3A voluntary administration regime (which recently marked its 20 year anniversary).

Legislative impact on the mortgagee’s exercise of power of sale : the need for rationalisation

Throughout Australia, regulation of the power of sale is highly inconsistent. In response to the uncertain nature of the mortgagee’s duty at common law, many legislatures have intervened. As a result, there has been a proliferation of statutory formula conferring varying degrees of protection on mortgagors. The differences in approach indicate a lack of consensus as to the best method of regulation. This article exposes the extent of the inconsistency and provides a comparative assessment of the various provisions with reference to the policy concerns that underpin legislative intervention. The article identifies a number of deficiencies associated with existing provisions and concludes that mortgagees and mortgagors alike would benefit from improved clarity and consistency. To that end, the article proposes a model provision that seeks to address the deficiencies identified.

Mind the insolvency gap : lessons to be learned from audit expectations gap theory

There is a general perception that public confidence in the insolvency profession is low as the result of the recent unethical practices of a few high profile liquidators. As a result, the effectiveness of the current regulatory mechanisms has been questioned, leading to a review of the performance of insolvency practitioners and subsequent regulation proposals. The challenge for the insolvency profession is balancing the expectations of the general public whilst ensuring that the obligations and duties imposed upon them are performed to acceptable and realistic standards. It is difficult (if not impossible) for the profession to meet this challenge in the absence of a cohesive framework which identifies those issues that require further regulation as opposed to those that relate to general education on the insolvency process. This paper will examine the audit expectations gap theory in the context of insolvency practitioners and suggests that a model based on this theory provides an effective framework for evaluating the regulation of the insolvency industry.

An Australian perspective on the ALI-III global principles for cooperation in International insolvency cases

In 2012, Professor Ian Fletcher (United Kingdom) and Professor Bob Wessels (The Netherlands) presented a Report to the American Law Institute and the International Insolvency Institute entitled Transnational Insolvency: Global Principles for Cooperation in International Insolvency Cases (“Global Principles”). This followed their appointment as Joint Reporters to investigate whether the essential provisions of the American Law Institute Principles of Cooperation among the North American Free Trade Agreement Countries with their annexed Guidelines Applicable to Court-to-Court Communication in Cross-border Cases may, with certain necessary modifications, be acceptable for use by jurisdictions across the world. This article comments on the Global Principles from the perspective of a jurisdiction which has adopted the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-border Insolvency (“Model Law”). In 2008, Australia enacted a standalone statute, the Cross-border Insolvency Act 2008 (Cth) to which is annexed the Model Law. In that process, it made minimal changes to the Model Law text. Against the background of the 2008 Act, related procedural laws as well as Australia’s general insolvency statutes and recent cross-border insolvency jurisprudence, this article comments on the potential relevance of the Transnational Insolvency Report as a point of reference for Australian courts and insolvency administrators when addressing international insolvency cases. By comparing the Global Principles with the Model Law as closely adopted in Australia, this analysis is a resource for other Model Law jurisdictions when considering the potential relevance of the Global Principles for their own international insolvency practice.

Developments in court to court communications in International insolvency cases

As business increasingly operates on a global basis, courts are called upon more often to adjudicate insolvency cases with international connections. The financial collapse of Lehman Brothers Holding Inc (‘Lehman Holdings’) provides a recent example where courts across many jurisdictions were called upon to determine issues arising from a multistate insolvent enterprise. Lehman Holdings filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the United States on 15 September 2008. Lehman Brothers was the fourth largest investment bank in America and the largest company ever to file for bankruptcy in the United States. However the effects of its collapse were felt worldwide, including within Australia.

The Australian Nonprofit Sector Legal Almanac 2014

The ACPNS nonprofit sector legal almanac provides summaries of legal cases involving nonprofit organisations, or of relevance to the work of nonprofits, particularly from Australia, but also New Zealand, the United Kingdom, Canada and the United States. It also summarises legislative changes that relate to nonprofit organisations in all Australian jurisdictions, and includes short articles on relevant topics: mergers of not for profit organisations; public ancillary funds; charitable housing; and dispute resolution.

Regulating against corporate phoenix activity

This paper considers the adequacy and efficiency of existing legal and regulatory frameworks to deal with corporate phoenix activity. Phoenix activity, which is often triggered by a solvency crisis, is estimated to cost the Australian economy up to $3 billion each year. Despite the raft of piecemeal Australian legislation directed at this activity, phoenix activity does not appear to be abating. This paper considers regulatory approaches to detection and enforcement of the underlying law. This study reveals and explores a perception that the law is deficient, and the tension that exists between the adequacy of the law and the regulatory approach.

The conundrum of phoenix activity in Australia: Is further reform necessary?

Corporate phoenixing activity is estimated to cost the Australian economy $1-3 billion dollars annually. Significant questions arise as to whether existing legal frameworks are adequate to deal with phoenix activity, and whether further reform is necessary. Bills proposing reform appear to be languishing amid doubts as to their potential effectiveness. This paper will examine the conundrum presented by phoenix activity, the importance of further reform and the impact of the lack of a statutory definition of ‘phoenix activity’ on a regulatory environment that not only uses the term, but punishes offenders accused of it.

The conundrum of phoenix activity: Is further reform necessary?

Phoenix activity presents a conundrum for the law and its regulators. While there is economic cost associated with all phoenix activity, the underlying behaviour is not always illegal. A transaction with indicators of phoenix activity may be an entirely innocent and well-intentioned display of entrepreneurial spirit, albeit one that has ended in failure. Restructuring post business failure is not illegal per se. Recent reforms targeting phoenix activity fail to grapple with the vast range of behaviour that can be described as phoenix activity since they do not differentiate between legal and illegal activity. This article explores the importance of the distinction between legal and illegal phoenix activity, the extent to which the existing law captures a range of behaviour that can be described as illegal phoenix activity and the response of key regulators and governmental bodies to the absence of single law that attempts to define illegal phoenix activity.

Economic theory informing approaches to phoenix activity in small business: A neo-Schumpeterian analysis

The adequacy and efficiency of existing legal and regulatory frameworks dealing with corporate phoenix activity have been repeatedly called into question over the past two decades through various reviews, inquiries, targeted regulatory operations and the implementation of piecemeal legislative reform. Despite these efforts, phoenix activity does not appear to have abated. While there is no law in Australia that declares ‘phoenix activity’ to be illegal, the behaviour that tends to manifest in phoenix activity can be capable of transgressing a vast array of law, including for example, corporate law, tax law, and employment law. This paper explores the notion that the persistence of phoenix activity despite the sheer extent of this law suggests that the law is not acting as powerfully as it might as a deterrent. Economic theories of entrepreneurship and innovation can to some extent explain why this is the case and also offer a sound basis for the evaluation and reconsideration of the existing law. The challenges facing key regulators are significant. Phoenix activity is not limited to particular corporate demographic: it occurs in SMEs, large companies and in corporate groups. The range of behaviour that can amount to phoenix activity is so broad, that not all phoenix activity is illegal. This paper will consider regulatory approaches to these challenges via analysis of approaches to detection and enforcement of the underlying law capturing illegal phoenix activity. Remedying the mischief of phoenix activity is of practical importance. The benefits include continued confidence in our economy, law that inspires best practice among directors, and law that is articulated in a manner such that penalties act as a sufficient deterrent and the regulatory system is able to detect offenders and bring them to account. Any further reforms must accommodate and tolerate legal phoenix activity, at least to some extent. Even then, phoenix activity pushes tolerance of repeated entrepreneurial failure to its absolute limit. The more limited liability is misused and abused, the stronger the argument to place some restrictions on access to limited liability. This paper proposes that such an approach is a legitimate next step for a robust and mature capitalist economy.

The Australian Nonprofit Sector Legal Almanac 2015

Collected summaries of court cases involving nonprofit organisations, from Australia and overseas, during 2015, along with updates of legislative changes in all Australian jurisdictions. Significant Australian cases included several disputes with State Revenue Authorities about exemption from payroll taxes.