The Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) (the Act) provides a regime by which a debtor can compromise with his/her creditors outside formal bankruptcy. The provisions are found in Part X (Personal Insolvency Agreements) and Part IX (Debt Agreements) of the Act.

DEBT AGREEMENTS

The High Court has recently clarified what is required for the creation of an express trust (Korda & Ors v Australian Executor Trustees (SA) Ltd [2015] HCA 6 (Korda)).

To be effective, express trusts must satisfy the three certainties of intention, subject matter and object. That is:

CLARITY OF INTENTION KEY TO CREATION OF EXPRESS TRUSTS: A WIN FOR RECEIVERS 

The High Court has recently clarified what is required for the creation of an express trust (Korda & Ors v Australian Executor Trustees (SA) Ltd [2015] HCA 6 (Korda)).

To be effective, express trusts must satisfy the three certainties of intention, subject matter and object. That is:

SUMMARY

The Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia have confirmed that a judgment on assessed costs is a final orders for the purposes of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) (Act), and therefore that a costs order can ground a bankruptcy notice for the purposes of the Act.

THE PERILS OF AMBIGUITY IN BANKRUPTCY NOTICES

The Bankruptcy Act ('the Act') is prescriptive as to the form and content of bankruptcy notices. Courts have often observed that close observance of the rules is necessary in light of the serious consequences faced by debtors upon bankruptcy and failure to do so may result in the notices being rendered invalid.

ABILITY TO SEEK AN EXTENSION OF TIME

Section 588FF(3) of the Corporations Act 2001 (the Act) provides liquidators with a mechanism by which to obtain an extension of time within which proceedings against the recipients of voidable transactions may be commenced.

A New York State Administrative Law Judge has denied an application for costs and fees filed by a petitioner who had succeeded in substantially reducing the asserted tax liability through settlement. Matter of Frank M. Grillo, DTA No. 823237 (N.Y.S. Div. of Tax App., Nov. 3, 2011). The decision turned on whether the position of the Department of Taxation and Finance was substantially justified, and that, in turn, depended upon whether the Department had used the correct address when it sent the Notice of Determination to the petitioner.