Can Creditor Meetings Be Held Online? ASIC Rules

Can Creditor Meetings Be Held Online? ASIC Rules Explained

Short answer: yes, they can — and these days, they often are.

Online creditor meetings have moved from a temporary workaround to a standard option in Australian insolvency practice. What started as a response to COVID-era restrictions is now embedded in the legal framework, with clear backing from both legislation and regulators.

That said, “allowed” doesn’t mean “anything goes”. There are still strict requirements around how meetings are run, how creditors participate, and how votes are taken. If those aren’t handled properly, outcomes can be challenged — and that’s where things get messy.

ASIC guidance on virtual creditor meetings

The ASIC insolvency guidance for creditors makes it clear that external administrators can hold meetings using technology, provided creditors are given a reasonable opportunity to participate.

ASIC’s position isn’t overly prescriptive on the platform itself. Instead, the focus is on outcomes:

If those fundamentals are met, the format — whether fully virtual or hybrid — is generally acceptable.

In practice, this shifts the burden onto the convenor (usually the liquidator or administrator) to ensure the technology works and that creditors aren’t effectively shut out.

Corporations Act provisions for virtual creditor meetings

The legal backbone sits within the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), particularly following amendments introduced through the Treasury Laws Amendment (2022 Measures No. 1) Act.

These changes permanently allow meetings to be held:

The key test is whether the chosen format gives members (in this case, creditors) a “reasonable opportunity to participate”. That phrase comes up repeatedly — and it’s where most disputes tend to land.

For creditor meetings specifically, additional procedural rules are set out in the Insolvency Practice Rules (Corporations) 2016, which deal with notice requirements, voting procedures, and conduct of meetings.

Technology requirements

This is where theory meets reality.

The legislation doesn’t mandate a specific platform, but it does expect the technology to be fit for purpose. That means more than just a video link.

At a minimum, the platform should support:

This is often where generic meeting tools fall short. They’re built for collaboration, not statutory voting.

It’s also why many insolvency practitioners now use dedicated systems — not because they have to, but because it reduces risk.

Ensuring creditor participation and voting rights

One of the more common issues with online meetings isn’t the technology itself — it’s how it’s used.

Creditors must be given clear instructions ahead of time. That includes how to join, how to vote, and what to do if something goes wrong.

If a creditor is unable to participate due to unclear instructions or technical barriers, the validity of the meeting can be questioned.

Voting, in particular, needs careful handling. Under the Insolvency Practice Rules, resolutions are generally decided by a majority in both:

That dual test means accuracy matters. Manual processes can quickly become error-prone in an online setting, especially when votes are close.

Proof of debt lodgement for virtual meetings

Before a creditor can vote, they generally need to lodge a proof of debt or claim.

This requirement hasn’t changed just because meetings have moved online. What has changed is how those documents are submitted and verified.

Electronic lodgement is widely accepted, provided it complies with the requirements set out in the ASIC proof of debt guidance.

In practice, that means:

Cut-off times become particularly important in virtual meetings, where everything tends to move faster.

Chairperson responsibilities for online meetings

The chairperson’s role doesn’t fundamentally change in an online setting — but the execution does.

They’re still responsible for maintaining order, ensuring the rules are followed, and determining the outcome of votes. What’s different is the added layer of managing a digital environment.

That includes:

There’s also a practical point here: running a compliant online meeting while chairing it is a lot to juggle. Many practitioners now separate those roles, with independent facilitators or voting providers handling the technical side.

How Vero Voting fits into online creditor meetings

This is exactly the gap platforms like Vero Voting are designed to fill.

Rather than relying on general-purpose meeting tools, Vero provides a structured environment tailored to statutory voting. That includes secure registration, automated vote calculations (by number and value), and a clear audit trail — all aligned with ASIC expectations.

For insolvency practitioners, it removes a layer of administrative risk. For creditors, it creates a smoother, more transparent experience.

It’s not about making meetings more complicated. It’s about making them defensible.

Final thoughts

Online creditor meetings are no longer the exception — they’re part of standard practice under Australian law. The framework is there, and it’s flexible. But that flexibility comes with responsibility.

If the process isn’t handled properly, the consequences can be significant.

If you’re planning a creditor meeting and want to make sure it runs cleanly — both procedurally and technically — it’s worth getting the setup right from the outset. Feel free to get in touch with Vero Voting to talk through what that looks like in practice.