[vc_row css_animation=”” row_type=”row” use_row_as_full_screen_section=”no” type=”full_width” angled_section=”no” text_align=”left” background_image_as_pattern=”without_pattern”][vc_column][vc_column_text]
Directors owe duties to the company to act in the interests of the company in order to promote good governance. However, sometimes directors breach their duties by engaging in phoenix activities (transferring assets of an indebted company to a new company).
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row css_animation=”” row_type=”row” use_row_as_full_screen_section=”no” type=”full_width” angled_section=”no” text_align=”left” background_image_as_pattern=”without_pattern”][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”18475″ img_size=”700 x 400″ alignment=”center” qode_css_animation=””][/vc_column][/vc_row]
[vc_separator type=”normal” position=”center” up=”20″ down=”20″]
Six main types of directors’ duties could be identified under General Law or Common Law. They are as follows:
The main legislative directors’ duties are contained in the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and they are as follows:
Section 180(1): Directors must exercise their powers and discharge their duties with the degree of care and diligence that a reasonable person would exercise. Reasonable person indicates an objective standard of care, consistent with the development of the equivalent fiduciary duty.6 Reasonable degree of care and diligence requires a balancing act of the foreseeable risk of harm against the potential benefits that could reasonably have been expected to accrue to company from the conduct in question.7
Section 180(2): The business judgment rule provides the director must:
The business judgement rule is an overriding safe harbour to protect directors from personal liability for breaches of duty owed to the company. The director must satisfy these requirements in order to have been taken to have satisfied the statutory duty of care and diligence.
Business judgment is defined in Section 180(3) as any decision to take or not take action in respect of a matter relevant to the business operations of the corporation. The rule applies only to business judgments consciously made, failures to act or omissions are not protected.
Section 181: Directors must exercise their powers and discharge their duties in good faith in the best interests of the corporation and for a proper purpose. This means directors must exercise their powers bona fide for the benefit of the company.
Section 182: Directors must not improperly use their position to gain an advantage for themselves or someone else, or cause detriment to the corporation, regardless of whether the benefit or detriment actually occurs in fact.
Section 183: Directors must not improperly use the information obtained as a director of the company to gain an advantage for themselves or someone else, or cause detriment to the corporation, despite of what actually occurs in fact.
Section 191: Directors have a duty to disclose to other directors any material personal interest in matters that relate to the affairs of the company.
Section 588G: Directors have a duty to prevent insolvent trading of a company. Please refer to our article on “Director’s Duty to Prevent Insolvent Trading”.
Illegal phoenix activity involves the intentional transfer of assets from an indebted company to a new company to avoid paying creditors, tax or employee entitlements, thereby the new company arises from the ashes of a failed predecessor. The directors leave the debts with the old company, often placing that company into administration or liquidation, leaving no assets to pay creditors. Figures put the cost of illegal phoenix activity to the Australian economy to be between $2.85 billion to $5.13 billion annually.8
The Australian Securities & Investments Commission defines phoenix activities as those when a company:
The particular duties a director conducting phoenix activities is likely to contravene include the duty to act in good faith and the duties in relation to proper use of information and position.
Specific remedies available against directors who engage in phoenix activity include civil and criminal penalties under the Corporations Act, disqualification of rogue directors, and access by creditors to directors’ personal assets and the prevention and recovery of asset transfers. However, most of these protections are remedial action conducted well after the damage has been done, providing little prevention or deterrence for directors from engaging in phoenix activity.
In February 2020, a new Bill was passed to give new powers to the Australian Securities & Investments Commission (ASIC), the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) and liquidators to deter illegal phoenix activity and to prosecute those engaged in such activities.
The Treasury Laws Amendment (Combating Illegal Phoenixing) Act 2020 commenced from 17 February 2020 (Sections 1-4), 18 February 2020 (Schedules 1-2) and 1 April 2020 (Schedules 3-4).
The Act makes the following main changes:10
The duty to prevent creditor-defeating dispositions has also been included as part of directors’ duties. Creditor-defeating dispositions is a new concept, which involves transferring company assets for less than the market price or the best value for the property. This has the effect of hindering the availability of these assets in the winding up of the company to be distributed to its creditors.
It applies if the company was insolvent and the transfer of assets took place within 12 months before the company was wound up; or if the company entered external administration within 12 months after the transaction.
The ATO has issued a Practical Compliance Guideline to explain how the Commissioner of Taxation will administer the changes under Schedule 3 of the Act regarding GST, Luxury Car Tax (LCT) and Wine Equalisation Tax (WET) estimates.
For more information on related matters, you may wish to read the following articles:
Comasters can advise clients on the duties of directors and the crime of phoenix activities.
[vc_separator type=”normal” position=”center” up=”20″ down=”20″]
1 Whitehouse v Carlton Hotel Pty Ltd (1987) 162 CLR 285.
2 Ngurli v McCann (1953) 90 CLR 425.
3 AWA Ltd v Daniels (1992) 7 ACSR 759.
4 Chan v Zacharia (1984) 154 CLR 178.
5 Furs Ltd v Tomkies (1936) 54 CLR 583.
6 ASIC v Adler (2002) 168 FLR 253.
7 ASIC v Doyle (2001) 38 ACSR 606.
8 ‘The economic impact of potential illegal phoenix activity’, PricewaterhouseCoopers, April 2018.
9 ASC research paper, Phoenix Companies and Insolvent Trading, No. 95/01 (July 1996).
10 Law Society Journal, ‘New laws passed to tackle illegal phoenix activity’, Danny Adno, April 2020; Australian Institute of Company Directors, ‘Combating Illegal Phoenixing Bill 2019 passed’, 13 February 2020, https://aicd.companydirectors.com.au/membership/the-boardroom-report/volume-18-issue-2/combating-illegal-phoenixing-bill.
[vc_separator type=”normal” position=”center” up=”20″ down=”20″]
© Comasters May 2014. Revised June 2020
Important: This is not advice. Clients should not act solely on the basis of the material contained in this paper. Our formal advice should be sought before acting on any aspect of the above information.