The Treasury Laws Amendment (Combating Illegal Phoenixing) Act 2020 (Cth) (Amending Act) came into force on 18 February 2020 and was designed to prevent illegal phoenixing activity. The Amending Act introduced reforms such as creditor-defeating disposition provisions to combat phoenixing activity. Additional provisions amending the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) were aimed to encourage accountability by preventing the resignation of directors when there is no replacement director in place.
What is phoenixing activity?
Phoenixing activity can be defined as the purposeful removal of assets and subsequent transferring of them to a new company before liquidation to avoid liabilities owed by the company to its creditors.
What are the amendments?
The Amending Act amended the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), with the key changes aimed at circumventing phoenix activities to:
- include a voidable transaction for “creditor-defeating dispositions”;
- establish new criminal offenses and civil penalty provisions;
- encourage the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) to retain refunds; and
- enable ASIC to possess the power to punish parties that engage in phoenix activities.
An overview of the regime is discussed below.
What is creditor-defeating dispositions?
A new voidable transaction for “creditor-defeating dispositions” was introduced to capture a disposition of property where the consideration that had been paid for property is less than its market value, or the best price reasonably obtainable for the property; and it had the effect of preventing, impeding or greatly delaying the property from becoming available to meet the demands of the company’s creditors in winding-up. This is extended to situations where the transaction creates property that did not exist before, and consideration for the disposition passes to a third party.
A “creditor-defeating disposition” will be a voidable transaction if certain criteria relating to the solvency of the company has been fulfilled. These criteria are set in reference to a twelve (12) month relation back period.
What are the criminal and civil penalty provisions?
Criminal and civil penalty measures were introduced to combat phoenixing activities. A criminal penalty applies where:
- an officer of a company engages in conduct that results in the company making a creditor-defeating disposition of property of the company according to section 588GAB(1);
- a person engages in conduct of procuring, inciting, inducing or encouraging the making by a company of a disposition of property that results in the company making the disposition of the property according to section 588GAC(1); and
- a person fails to comply with an ASIC administrative order according to section 588FGAA.
A civil penalty applies where:
- an officer of a company engages in conduct that results in the company making a creditor defeating disposition of a company’s property according to section 588GAB(2); and
- a person engages in conduct of procuring, inciting, inducing or encouraging the making of a creditor defeating disposition of a company’s property according to section 588GAC(2).
The provisions where a person engages in conduct of procuring, inciting, inducing or encouraging the creditor defeating disposition of a company’s property, are applicable to professional advisers such as lawyers, accountants, and pre-insolvency advisors.
What powers does the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) have to recover unpaid tax liabilities?
The Amending Act has provided the ATO with enhanced powers to recover unpaid tax liabilities. These measures including:
- the extension of director penalties to encompass unpaid PAYG withholding amounts;
- authorising the ATO to retain tax refunds if the taxpayer has ATO lodgements and/or disclosure that are outstanding; and
- allowing the Commissioner to collect estimates of anticipated GST and recover it directly from directors through the company’s GST liabilities.
What powers does the regulator have to recover unpaid tax liabilities?
The Amending act provides ASIC with the power to recover property received in a voidable creditor-defeating disposition and retain refunds. ASIC may order the recipient of the property on its own initiative or at the request of a liquidator to:
- return the property;
- pay a sum representing the benefit the recipient has received to the company; or
- transfer to the company property purchased with the proceeds of the creditor-defeating disposition.
Links and further references
Legislation
Treasury Laws Amendment (Combating Illegal Phoenixing) Act 2020 (Cth)
Cases
Re Intellicomms Pty Ltd (in liq) [2022] VSC 228
Further information about illegal phoenixing
If you need advice on combatting illegal phoenixing, contact us for a confidential and obligation-free discussion:
Malcolm Burrows B.Bus.,MBA.,LL.B.,LL.M.,MQLS.
Legal Practice Director
T: +61 7 3221 0013 (preferred)
M: +61 419 726 535
E: mburrows@dundaslawyers.com.au
Disclaimer
This article contains general commentary only. You should not rely on the commentary as legal advice. Specific legal advice should be obtained to ascertain how the law applies to your particular circumstances.
Related insights about illegal phoenixing
-
What are exclusive supply contracts?
The Court must consider whether the applicant has no other effective remedy, and if the information is sought for criminal proceedings, that there is a reasonable potential it will lead to conviction.
-
Shareholder oppression – a taxonomy of corporate wrongs
This article examines the concept of shareholder oppression and provides examples of when the Court has found oppressive conduct, as well as when it has not. It also outlines the remedies the Court prefers when faced with oppressive conduct.
-
Changes for casual employment – employer’s responsibilites
The Fair Work Amendment Act 2021 (Cth) has changed the landscape of employment for casual employees. Employers need to be aware of the amended definition of casual employees, the “casual conversion” option and the requirement to provide a Casual Employment Information Statement (CEIS).
-
The legal requirements of crowdfunding in business
Mareva Orders are a tool to protect the proper administration of justice and prevent an abuse of Court processes. The Court can restrain a defendant from disposing of their assets, ensuring the plaintiff has an effective remedy.
-
Electronic signing of documents no longer allowed for companies
The ability for companies to execute documents electronically (e-signing) is set to expire, but the Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Bill 2021 could extend it. Find out how this could affect businesses and what the Senate’s decision could mean.
-
Company wound up under s461K for failing to achieve its objectives?
The NSW Supreme Court case of Gearhouse provides insight into the Court’s power to wind up a company under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). A combination of circumstances, including deadlock between shareholders, loss of confidence in management and an expired agreement, can lead to winding up.
-
Director resignations – effects from 18 February 2021
The Treasury Laws Amendment (Combating Illegal Phoenixing) Act 2020 (Phoenixing Act) introduced major changes to the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act), with implications for directors. Learn more about the timeline for director resignations and the potential liabilities of directors under the new law.
-
Explaining Australia’s Media Bargaining Code
The News Media Bargaining Code (NMBC) is quickly moving through Parliament and looks likely to become law. It requires digital platforms, such as Facebook and Google, to negotiate remuneration with News Companies for providing their media services. Non-compliance could result in hefty civil penalties.
-
Shareholder oppression – the early warning signs
This article explores the legal framework of shareholder oppression and identifies early warning signs to look out for when starting a new venture, such as entity type, relationship with advisors, exclusion from management, access to info and non-flexible negotiation.
