Yesterday the High Court handed down its decision in Commissioner of Taxation v Australian Building Systems Pty Ltd (in liq) [2015] HCA 48.  The High Court held (by a majority of 3:2) that, in the absence of an assessment, a liquidator is not required to retain funds from asset sale proceeds in order to meet a tax liability which could become payable as a result of a capital gain made on the sale.  In doing so, the majority of the High Court affirmed the decision of the Full Federal Court and provided long awaited guidance to liquidators, receivers and administrators.

A Singapore entity who had entered into a joint venture with an Indonesian entity brought suit in Singapore. The Indonesian entity owned shares in an Australian company. The Singapore entity made an ex parte application to the Supreme Court of Western Australia ("Supreme Court") to freeze the shareholding interests. The court granted the application, but the Court of Appeal dismissed the freezing order. The High Court reversed.

Key Points:

You can lead a director to the safe harbour, but you can't make him drink.

The Government's new approach to insolvency is long on rhetoric about risk taking and the need to remove the stigma of business failure.

However, it is short on detailed consideration of exactly why we have legal rules for corporate and personal insolvency.

Those rules aim to balance the interests of creditors against the need to encourage business start-ups.

With the introduction of the unfair preference regime in the Corporations Act 2001, a short provision was included which stated:

“… a secured debt is taken to be unsecured to the extent of so much of it (if any) as is not reflected in the value of the security.”(section 588FA(2))

The provision has been rarely considered. There has been little case law providing any judicial interpretation of the subsection.

That is, until the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (PPSA) commenced.

Have the tough times in the construction industry changed? It would appear not despite an uptick in the New South Wales economy. “I just want to be paid” is the title of the report just released by the Senate Economics References Committee.[1]

The Federal Government's NationalInnovationandScienceAgendawas announced on 7 December 2015.

The Australian Government has accepted certain recommendations of the Productivity Commission's long-awaited Report on Business Set-up, Transfer and Closure, in an attempt to change the focus of Australia's insolvency laws from "penalising and stigmatising business failure”, according to the Minister for Small Business and Assistant Treasurer, the Hon Kelly O'Dwyer MP.

It has expressed a willingness to legislate to introduce at least two main changes:

With the release of its much anticipated National Innovation and Science Agenda (the NISA), the Federal Government has committed more than $1 billion over the next four years to turning around Australia’s innovation performance.  

Australia’s poor record in translating research to commercial products and services is well known. We rank last amongst OECD countries for collaboration on innovation between industry and higher education and public research institutions.

The Australian government has announced a 'National Innovation and Science Agenda' to be introduced by the middle of 2017, which includes providing a defence to protect directors from liability for insolvent trading where restructuring advice is obtained in an attempt to turn around a company's financial position. The government has also released the Productivity Commission Report on 'Business Set-up, Transfer and Closure' which contains recommendations on how the defence will operate.

The Productivity Commission published its final report on Business Set-up, Transfer and Closure on 7 December 2015. A copy of the final report is available here.

The final report recommends a number of changes to Australia's corporate insolvency laws and follows public consultation on the Productivity Commission's draft report released in May 2015.