2. IV Investor Pty Ltd has four directors: Adderson, Boon and two nominees of Blue Ltd, the company that owns the other 50% of the issued shares in [V Investor. IV Investor has spent several million dollars on developing the new technology, but it is not going well. The chief operating ofcer of IV Investor sent a report to its directors explaining that there were cash ow difculties, that rival technologies were emerging, and that the prospects of IV Investor raising further capital by borrowing or further equity injections from AMGL or Blue were limited. At a board meeting attended by Boon and the two Blue nominees, the directors resolve to enter into an agreement with a German software rm to purchase the intellectual property that might assist the project. Adderson is away on holidays and does not attend the meeting. Have the directors (or any of them) breached their statutory duty to prevent insolvent trading by IV Investor? See [ll2-140]-[f|I12-160] and 55886, 5588H ofthe Corporations Act Using the IRAC method, determine whether the director(s) have breached their statutory duty to avoid insolvent trading. Answering this question will involve three steps. They are: 1. Does sSBBG apply? 2. If so, have the directors contravened 558860)? 3. Do any ofthe defences in s588H apply? A fourth question is what the consequence might be. 3. If the directors of IV Investor have breached their duty to prevent insolvent trading, what action (if any) can the German software rm take against them? Assume that the debt owed to the German software rm under the contract is unsecured. See ['jI12-180] and s538R of the Corporations Act. What type of provisions is sSBBG? What does this mean for the directors and the software company? Who else might have a say in this matter