Raising capital amidst the COVID-19 crisis

By John Hutchinson, James Morvell, Deborah Chew and Vanessa Murphy

We are all aware that the COVID-19 pandemic is having a massive impact on the business operations of many Australian listed companies and Australian and global securities markets. With many businesses needing additional capital to sustain or evolve their operations through the next six months (or longer), raising new capital will be crucial for the survival of many listed entities.

The law is adapting to address the need for capital raisings to proceed amidst distressed markets, and company directors should be aware of the additional options and protections available to them when raising capital in the current environment.

Temporary capital raising relief

Australian regulators have been swift in recognising the challenges currently facing the market, and recent legal developments show a willingness of both ASIC and the ASX to adapt to the rapidly changing environment. These recent developments include the following:

  • Trading halts: ASX has permitted listed entities to request two consecutive trading halts, to allow for additional time to structure and undertake capital raisings. ASIC has also temporarily adapted the disclosure document obligations to reflect this position, allowing entities to undertake ‘low doc’ capital raises such as entitlement offers and share purchase plans without issuing a disclosure document where the entities have been suspended for up to 10 days in the preceding 12 months (rather than the ordinary five days).
  • Additional placement capacity: ASX has increased the 15% placement capacity to 25% where the additional capacity is used in a single placement and in conjunction with a standard rights issue, an accelerated entitlement offer or offer under a securities purchase plan (where the price is no greater than the placement price).
  • Entitlement offer ratio: ASX is permitting listed entities to undertake non-renounceable entitlement offers on a ratio that is greater than one security for each existing security (ie existing securityholders may be offered more than one security for each security they already hold).

These relief measures provide useful benefits to listed entities looking to raise capital, by providing greater flexibility around the structure and quantum of a raise. There are various criteria to be satisfied to obtain the benefit of the relief, including that listed entities wishing to take advantage of the class waivers must provide a written notice to ASX outlining the circumstances in which they are intending to rely on the waiver.

What about insolvent trading?

Under the Corporations Act, a company will be insolvent if it cannot meet its debts as and when they fall due. Company directors should always be conscious of the positive statutory duty imposed on them to prevent insolvent trading.

This is particularly important, given that they can be personally liable for debts incurred by the company if it trades while insolvent, and this awareness should be heightened in the current environment. However, there are ways that issues relating to insolvent trading can be managed in the context of a company raising capital where there are concerns regarding solvency.

Safe harbour protections

Even prior to the COVID-19 outbreak, directors of listed entities were relying on safe harbour protections to raise capital.

The safe harbour regime provides that directors will not be trading while insolvent if the relevant debts are incurred at a time when they were pursuing a course of action reasonably likely to lead to a better outcome for the company than liquidation. Where capital raisings are carefully prepared and managed in line with the safe harbour regime, directors may have the benefit of the safe harbour protections.

In our experience, continuous disclosure also needs to be carefully managed when directors are operating under the safe harbour regime (despite ASX providing guidance that operating under the regime itself does not require disclosure).

More information on the specific requirements of the safe harbour regime is outlined here.

Insolvent trading prosecutions

In line with its recent public announcements, the Federal Government has enacted temporary amendments to insolvency laws to address the issues being faced by businesses as a consequence of the COVID-19 outbreak.

The temporary changes provide relief from personal liability for company directors arising from insolvent trading in respect of debts incurred between 25 March 2020 and 23 September 2020. This applies only to debts incurred in the ordinary course of business if it is necessary to facilitate the continuation of the business.

For companies looking to raise capital, this means that there is potential protection available to directors in respect of debts incurred while the business continues to operate throughout the offer period, as well as for transaction costs associated with the raise, where the necessary criteria are met.

However, given the potential consequences of falling foul of the insolvent trading prohibitions, directors and senior executives must carefully manage operations and capital raising plans to ensure that they obtain the benefit of the safe harbour regime and any relief from insolvent trading.

Contact

Emma Woolley

Partner & Head of Family Office Advisory

Karl Rozenbergs

Partner & Co-Lead, Health & Community

Ben Hamilton

Partner & Technology and Digital Economy Co-Lead

James Deady

Partner & Technology and Digital Economy Co-Lead

Eugene Chen

Partner & Head of China Practice

Oliver Jankowsky

Partner & Head of International Practice

John Bassilios

Partner & Fintech and Blockchain Lead

Matthew Curll

Partner & Insurance National Practice Leader

Melanie Smith

Director – Business Development, Marketing and Communications

Natalie Bannister

Partner & Commercial National Practice Leader

Nathan Kennedy

Partner, Head of Pro Bono & Community and ESG Co-Lead

William Moore

Partner & Head of Private Clients Advisory

Mark Dessi

Partner & Energy Leader

James Bull

Special Counsel & Frank Lab Co-Lead

Melanie James

People & Culture Manager

Jacqui Barrett

Partner & Head of US Desk

Lauren Parrant

Senior People & Culture Advisor

Melinda Woledge

Marketing & Communications Manager

Jasmine Koh

Senior Associate & Frank Lab Co-Lead

Alison Choy Flannigan

Partner & Co-Lead, Health & Community

Jordon Lee

Lawyer

Geoff Benson

Lawyer

Meg Lee

Partner & ESG Co-Lead

John Gray

Partner, Technology & Digital Economy Co-Lead and NSW Government Co-Lead

Harvey Duckett

Lawyer

Luke Denham

Lawyer

Billie Kerkez

Manager – Smarter Recovery Solutions

Jemima Whiteman

Lawyer

Bradley White

Lawyer

Sarah Khan

Lawyer

Audrey Leahy

Special Counsel & Head of Irish Desk

Nicole Tumiati

Partner & Retail & Consumer Goods Leader

Marie Mitilineos

Lawyer

Gloria Tam

Lawyer

Peter Jones

Senior Commercial Counsel

Eden Winokur

Partner & Head of Cyber

Jennifer Degotardi

Partner & NSW Government Co-Lead

Sheldon Fu

Lawyer

Claire Bourke

Lawyer

Chloe Taylor

Lawyer

Silvana Brcina

Lawyer

Daphne Schilizzi

Lawyer

Andrew Banks

Lawyer

Isabella Urso

Lawyer

Jessica Liu

Lawyer

Amelia Spratt

Lawyer

Lisa Ziegert

Director – Client Solutions

Luke Raams

Lawyer

Emma McDonald

Lawyer

Carl Ayers

Lawyer

Maddison Reznik

Senior Associate & Trade Marks Attorney

Rebecca Dodd

Lawyer

Gretel Burns

Lawyer

Ruby Hunt

Pro Bono & Community Co-ordinator

Rachel Bonic

Lawyer

Samantha Frost

Lawyer

Emma Bechaz

Lawyer

You might be also interested in...

Corporate Governance | 1 Apr 2020

Holding AGMs during the COVID-19 crisis

The current coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19) has many entities with a 31 December financial year end rethinking their Annual General Meeting (AGM) arrangements for 2020. In light of the new COVID-19 gathering restrictions, entities must now consider either postponing their AGM or conducting it in a different way, such as holding a hybrid or virtual AGM.

Corporate & Commercial | 2 Apr 2020

COVID-19: an ‘act of God’?

The term ‘act of God’ appears regularly within contracts, but is not a concept that is defined under statute. In light of the COVID-19 outbreak, many parties are considering whether the outbreak itself is an ‘act of God’.