New phoenixing laws put to the test

The liquidators of Intellicomms applied to the Court for relief in relation to a sale agreement entered into between Intellicomms and a related company for the sale of business assets, claiming it was a creditor-defeating disposition and a voidable transaction.
The key issue was whether the $20,727.17 payable to Intellicomms under the sale agreement was less than the market value of the property or less than the best price that was reasonably obtainable for the property. The Court’s focus was on what a prospective buyer of Intellicomms would have paid for the purchase of Intellicomms’ business. The liquidators provided evidence that a secured creditor expressed its willingness to purchase the Intellicomms business, and provided an indicative purchase price between $500,000 and $1 million – far greater than the $20,727.17 value of the sale agreement.
The Court was satisfied that the criteria for a creditor-defeating disposition had been met and that the disposition was a voidable transaction. The Court made orders to undo the sale agreement, including for the return of Intellicomms’ assets to the liquidators.
Company directors and pre-insolvency advisors may face both civil and criminal claims against them personally if they facilitate a creditor-defeating disposition. Further, directors should be mindful that ASIC has powers to order the return of property or for the payment of compensation without Court involvement. This is a powerful tool available to ASIC in addition to its existing powers.
Read the original article: New phoenixing laws put to the test
Read more articles from the December 2022 edition of The Annual Return.
Cara Thompson
View profileKeep up to date with our legal insights and events
Sign upRecent articles
Watchdog Podcast | “You have definitely won!”: Marketing claims, consumers and the MagnaMail decision
When does promotional language cross the line into misleading conduct?
Court indicates directors breached their duties after relying on AI for legal strategy and advice
The Supreme Court of NSW provides an example of the risks of the use of AI by directors in their governance.
Ten weeks to go: OAIC releases guidance on new automated decision-making transparency obligations under APP 1
ADM transparency obligations that will commence on 10 December 2026 under Australian Privacy Principle 1.
Unconscionable by design: the Federal Court delivers two scathing judgments on dishonest and manipulative business practices
The Federal Court has recently made serious findings of unlawful conduct against two different businesses.
Partner
Melbourne