top of page
BPSR_colour (13 of 18)_edited.jpg
Blue Logo 100%.png

Bob's
Blog

Superannuation and Bankruptcy

The basic thrust of the Commonwealth's legislation regarding superannuation is to encourage as
many people as possible, to build up a superannuation fund which will be sufficient to fund their
retirement and thereby not require the Government to pay them a pension and associated benefits.
The Bankruptcy Act adopts this policy by prescribing that the funds held by a bankrupt at the date of
their bankruptcy in a regulated superannuation fund are "protected" and cannot be seized by the
trustee for the benefit of the bankrupt's creditors.

View More ...

The new Insolvency Law
Reform Act is here

The Insolvency Law Reform Act 2016 has finally arrived and according to the Government
propaganda "it represents the most significant suite of reforms to Australia's bankruptcy and
corporate insolvency laws in twenty years and is an integral component of the Federal Government's
agenda of improving economic incentives for innovation and entrepreneurialism."

View More ...

Bob's Blog

Superannuation and
Bankruptcy

Whilst the Bankruptcy Act does not specify that the payment must be received from the bankrupt’s super fund, the payment must be made by a regulated super fund direct to the bankrupt. This issue was recently considered by the Federal Court ( see Cunningham v Gapes ) when it found in favour of the bankruptcy trustee who was seeking recovery of $87,900.33 paid to the bankrupt by the executors of his mother’s deceased estate, the bulk of which comprised of the funds which the executors of the mother’s deceased estate had received from her super fund.

The bankrupt banked the $87,900.33 being his one-third interest in his mother’s deceased estate, into his wife’s bank account because he did not have a bank account. When the bankruptcy trustee became aware of the payment, he sought repayment of the $87,900.33 from the bankrupt and his wife, who rebutted the trustee’s claim asserting that the payment was protected because the subject $87,900.33 was directly and solely attributable to the funds held by the bankrupt’s mother in a superannuation fund.

The trustee responded by applying to the Court for declarations and orders that the moneys were not protected because the payment was not made directly to the bankrupt by the super fund but instead, by the executors of his mother’s deceased estate.

The Court found for the trustee agreeing with his submissions that once the mother’s super fund paid the $248,696.49 in the super fund to the executors of the mother’s deceased estate, the moneys lost its character as superannuation and the payment was received by the bankrupt from the deceased estate and not the super fund.

The bankrupt’s wife unsuccessfully relied on a previous judgment (Trustees of the Property of Morris (Bankrupt) v Morris) in which the Court rejected the trustee’s claim to two payments the bankrupt had received from her late husband’s super fund. However, the Court in the current case, pointed out that the Morris judgment did not apply because the two payments were made by the super fund directly to Mrs Morris the bankrupt.

Whilst Commonwealth’s policy on super may spark some interest with insolvent debtors facing bankruptcy and prompt them to transfer their available but dwindling funds, into their super fund prior to bankruptcy, the Bankruptcy Act was amended in October 2007, to prescribe that any payments into super funds in such circumstance made since 28 July 2006 to defeat creditors, can be recovered by the bankruptcy trustee if the debtor becomes bankrupt. The Federal Circuit Court recently considered these provisions when finding in favour of the trustee who asserted that the bankrupt’s transfer of his Armidale property to his super fund was done with the intention of defeating of his creditors ( see Jones v Official Receiver & Anor (No.4) [2017] ).

So it is considered that whilst the provisions of the Bankruptcy Act concerning superannuation are in line with the Commonwealth’s overall policy on superannuation, its provisions are also designed to protect the interests of creditors and those interests are being upheld by the Courts.

The basic thrust of the Commonwealth's legislation
regarding superannuation is to encourage as many
people as possible, to build up a superannuation fund
which will be sufficient to fund their retirement and
thereby not require the Government to pay them a
pension and associated benefits. The Bankruptcy Act
adopts this policy by prescribing that the funds held
by a bankrupt at the date of their bankruptcy in a
regulated superannuation fund are "protected" and
cannot be seized by the trustee for the benefit of the
bankrupt's creditors. Likewise, any payments made to
the bankrupt during their bankruptcy from any such a
fund, not necessarily the bankrupt's fund, are
protected. Furthermore, in a convoluted manner, the
protection afforded to such payments flows over to
any assets such as a house, where the whole or
substantially all, of the purchase price/acquisition cost
of the asset comprises moneys received from the
superannuation fund payment to the bankrupt.

BPSR_colour (2 of 5).jpg
BPSR_colour (2 of 5).jpg

Bob's Blog

The new Insolvency Law Reform Act is here

The Insolvency Law Reform Act 2016 has finally arrived and according to the Government propaganda “it represents the most significant suite of reforms to Australia’s bankruptcy and corporate insolvency laws in twenty years and is an integral component of the Federal Government’s agenda of improving economic incentives for innovation and entrepreneurialism.”

Furthermore ..”The new Act, which amends the Corporations Act, the ASIC Act and the Bankruptcy Act, poses significant implications for both personal and corporate insolvency practitioners by seeking to impose common rules for the conduct of administrations which are intended to improve efficiency, competition and consumer confidence in the insolvency profession.”

However there are a number of strident critics of the new Act, one of which being Michael Murray a former Deputy Registrar in Bankruptcy and more recently, former legal counsel at ARITA. Michael in one of his articles published in 2016, commented that it has been very the slow process in bringing in the changes in that, way back on 18 December 2007, the Australian Insolvency Management Practice News called for the alignment between personal and corporate insolvency laws, the adoption of more effective recovery processes, the updating and streamlining the insolvency laws and the need for a single insolvency regulator. He then commented that “insolvency needed a race horse and we got a camel and a slow moving and somewhat unhappy one at that.”

In addition to the slowness of the changes being introduced, Michael perhaps may have also been referring to the definition of a camel ie. “a camel is a racehorse designed by a government committee”

Intriguingly, the proposed changes relating to “increased productivity through innovation and entrepreneurialism” appear to have missed the cut, viz:

  • Reducing the personal bankruptcy period from 3 years to 1 year, which was intended to incentivise the taking of entrepreneurial risks by facilitating earlier re-entry into commerce of skilled business people;

  • Introduction of a “safe harbour” to shelter directors from personal liability for insolvent trading in cases where a director has engaged a professional restructuring advisor to assist in turning the business back towards financial viability.

  • Nullification of “ipso facto” clauses in contracts (whereby a party can terminate the contract upon an insolvency event affecting the other party) in cases where the company is implementing a restructure to address its financial difficulties;

 

Furthermore, no attempt has been made to address the paradoxical situation concerning a bankrupt’s income which whilst subject to the income contribution regime, does not vest in the trustee. If portion of the after-tax income which a bankrupt is entitled to retain, is used to acquire an asset which is not protected by section 116(2) of the Bankruptcy Act, the trustee can seize the asset as “after-acquired property” which flies in the face of the Fresh Start concept enshrined in the bankruptcy legislation.

Well, maybe the legislators will get around to these in another 5 years time?

 

 

bottom of page