VICTORIA UNIVERSITY FACULTYOF BUSINESS SCHOOL OF LAW BLO 2205 CORPORATE LAW ASSIGNMENTSemester2 2012 Melbourne Pty Ltd has one company secretary, Jill and four directors: William, Jack, Susan and...

1 answer below »

VICTORIA UNIVERSITY


FACULTY OF BUSINESS


SCHOOL OF LAW


BLO 2205 CORPORATE LAW ASSIGNMENTSemester 2 2012



  1. Melbourne Pty Ltd has one company secretary, Jill and four directors: William, Jack, Susan and Sarah. William is the managing director of the company while the rest of the directors are non executive directors of the company. Susan is an experienced business woman with other business interests and she is not involved in the running of the company. She leaves the running of the company to William and relies on him. She believes that if there is any problem in the company William will let her know. Sarah is William's wife and she never attends any company board meetings. Sarah always relies on William and never questions his management of the company because she trusts him implicitly in relation to all company matters. Jack has always been actively involved in the running of the company business until July 2008 when he was diagnosed with a heart condition when he became very ill. Following his illness Jack was unable to attend Board meetings and could no longer carry out his main function which was to monitor the financial situation of company. In June 2009 Jack intended to resign from his position as a director but was hospitalised and forgot to lodge his resignation with the company and ASIC.


In June 2009 the financial position of the company worsens. Despite being fully aware of the company's deteriorating financial position William does not inform the other directors of this as he does not wish to worry them. If ever questioned about the company’s financial performance William always stated that the company's financial position was solid and he distributed to the board members a summary report confirming this.


As a result of this favourable report, the board of directors decides to declare a dividend to members. Susan was absent from the meeting. Shortly after the dividend was paid the company went into liquidation. The liquidator discovers that the company was not keeping proper financial records since Jack’s illness.



REQUIRED:


Advise whether there have been any breaches of the directors’ duties in relation to insolvent trading. Also advise whether any defences are available to the directors and what penalties may be imposed upon them if they are found to have breached the insolvent trading provisions under the Corporations Act 2001.


(Total of 30 marks)

Answered Same DayDec 29, 2021

Answer To: VICTORIA UNIVERSITY FACULTYOF BUSINESS SCHOOL OF LAW BLO 2205 CORPORATE LAW ASSIGNMENTSemester2...

David answered on Dec 29 2021
121 Votes
Issue:
The issue in question is whether there are any breaches of directors’ duties in relation to
insolvent trading?
Are there any defences available to the directors?
What penalties may be enforced upon directors if they are found to have breached the
insolvent trading provisions under the Corporations Act 2001?
Law:
Section 588 G of the Corporations Act 2001, deals with the director
s’ duties to prevent
insolvent trading.
According to the section, it is the duty of the director of a company to prevent the company
from insolvent trading or to make sure that the company is solvent when debt is incurred. The
provisions of this section require a director of a company to prevent the company from
incurring a debt if:
- Firstly, the company is already insolvent at the time the debt is incurred.
- And secondly, by incurring that debt or a number of debts, the company becomes
insolvent.
And, at the time of acquiring of the debt, there are realistic grounds of believing that the
company is already insolvent, or would become insolvent by acquiring the debt.
Section 588 G (1A) enumerates various actions, which when performed, amount to incurring
of a debt. One of such acts is paying of dividend, and debt is said to be incurred when the
dividend is paid, or in case of a company with a constitution, when the dividend is declared.
Penalties imposed:
Section 588 G sets out two stages of infringement – one a civil penalty provision under sec
588 G(2) and the other a criminal offence under sec 588 G(3). As per section 588 G(2), a
director who is mindful that there grounds for questioning insolvency, or where a reasonable
person in similar circumstances would suspect insolvency, and such a director fails to
prevent the debt being incurred; then such a case attracts a civil penalty provision. As per
section 588 G(3), a criminal offence is done if at the time of incurring the debt, the director
suspected that the company is insolvent or would become insolvent as a result of incurring
the debt and was unsuccessful to avert the incurring of the debt provided that such failure
was dishonest.
In case of contravention of civil penalty provision in Sec 588G (2), the court may make one
or more of the following –
- An order for compensation under sec 1317H making the director personally liable to
make reimbursement equal to the loss suffered by the company as a result of such failure
to prevent insolvent trading.
- An order for penalty under sec 1317G setting a penalty on the director to pay a sum of
$200,000 to the Commonwealth.
- Disqualifying the director under section 206C from managing a corporation for a
particular period of time.
In case of a criminal offence under Sec 588G(3), the court may make an order for the
director to pay a penalty of $220,000 or imprisonment for up to five years or both.
Defences available:
Section 588 H provides a list of defences available to a director in case of a civil claim for
insolvent trading under Section 588G (3) –
- A director has a defence, if he had rational grounds to expect that the company was
solvent and would remain solvent even if it incurred the debt(s) and did expect so.
- If he had realistic grounds to believe that a knowledgeable and dependable person
responsible for providing sufficient information about the solvency of the company, was
satisfying that responsibility and the director had acted on the basis of such information.
- If he did not take part in the administration of the company due to his sickness or another
worthy reason.
- He took all rational steps from preventing the company from acquiring the debt,
including the appointment of administrator of the company.
The case law applicable is Metropolitan Fire Systems Pty Ltd v Miller (1997) 23 ACSR 699,
where in it was held that in order to determine whether reasonable grounds exist for
suspecting insolvency, an objective test needs to be carried out.
Another case law...
SOLUTION.PDF

Answer To This Question Is Available To Download

Related Questions & Answers

More Questions »

Submit New Assignment

Copy and Paste Your Assignment Here