Can a liquidator run an unjust enrichment claim to seek to recover PAYE and NIC liabilities from a company’s directors arising from the company’s use of a “disguised remuneration” employee benefit trust (“EBT”) scheme? Based on the findings of ICC Judge Barber in the case of Re Ethos Solutions Ltd, the answer is “no”.

EBTs: Background

On Sunday evening, March 12, 2023, the US Department of the Treasury, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Board (Federal Reserve) and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) released a joint statement announcing various actions to stabilize the US banking system, in light of the widely publicized failures of Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) and Signature Bank (Signature Bank), each of which was closed by their respective state chartering authorities, with the FDIC appointed as receiver.

An all too typical fact pattern involves a small-time ne’er-do-well infringing on the rights of a much bigger corporation. When the corporation is forced to bring a lawsuit, the “little guy” infringer cries poverty and seeks a settlement. An oft-used tactic of corporations is to settle the matter quickly (and before too much in attorneys’ fees has been incurred) for a relatively modest sum (or even no money at all) while also including a mechanism by which any breach of the settlement agreement triggers the filing of an agreed judgment for a large sum of money.

In the much-anticipated decision of Bryant v Badenoch Integrated Logging Pty Ltd [2023] HCA 2 (Badenoch (HCA)), the High Court of Australia (the HCA) has now confirmed that the peak indebtedness rule may not be used when assessing the quantum of an unfair preference claim arising from a continuing business relationship.

Supply chains are facing a fresh barrage of challenges. There are an almost infinite variety of issues that can arise within the supply chain. Minor irritants that historically may have just made business a bit more difficult to transact can, in the current environment, cumulatively exert significant pressure. Additionally, an over reliance on a third party or failure to spot the weakest links in this chain could have a catastrophic impact on your business

In our latest insight, we consider how to identify pinch points in your supply chain and de-risk them.

The Federal Court of Australia (Court) has handed down the first reported decision on the ipso facto stay provisions contained in the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act).

Although not directly concerned with directors' liabilities, the recent Supreme Court judgment in Stanford International Bank Ltd v HSBC Bank PLC provides further clarity on the circumstances in which a distressed or insolvent company may seek to make claims against its directors.

INTRODUCTION

The key aspects affecting directors' liabilities presented in the Supreme Court ruling are that:

Where a commercial property is sold by a receiver or insolvency practitioner (IP), VAT must be charged on the sale if the owner had exercised and properly notified an option to tax (OTT) in respect of the property. The IP acting on behalf of the seller needs to establish whether an OTT has been made and notified so that VAT is charged , if needed.  This can be difficult if company records are in disarray, directors of the insolvent company are non-cooperative and/or the IP or receiver has limited knowledge of the property and company.

The new year has seen a rapid pace being set in terms of anticipated and actual legislative, regulatory and common law changes across Australia’s restructuring and insolvency regimes. The federal government’s inquiry into restructuring and bankruptcy laws is ongoing against a backdrop of sustained monetary policy interventions.

Following the sanctioning of the Good Box restructuring plan (RP) it seems the answer is yes. This might sound surprising to those familiar with schemes of arrangement, because that outcome is at odds with the long-standing decision in Re Savoy Hotels.

For those less familiar with schemes and scheme case law, the court declined to sanction the Savoy scheme because the company did not approve it, consequently the judge found that the court had no jurisdiction to sanction it.