Today, by a majority of 3-2, the High Court of Australia in Commissioner of Taxation v Australian Building Systems Pty Ltd (in liq) [2015] HCA 48 confirmed that s 254(1)(d) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth) (ITAA 1936) does not impose an obligation on trustees (including administrators, receivers and liquidators) to retain sufficient moneys from the trust fund to pay tax unless a relevant assessment has been issued.
The Turnbull Government’s much-heralded ‘Innovation Statement’ was released yesterday. It contained wide-ranging statements on reforms aimed at fostering innovation across a number of sectors in the Australian economy.
One important reform area is in Australian corporate insolvency law.
Corporate insolvency law reform timetable
The Innovation Statement includes important content for the reform of Australia’s corporate insolvency laws. It is part of an ongoing reform exercise which has followed this timetable to date:
Consider this situation: a dispute has arisen between two parties in relation to an agreement which is subject to an arbitration clause. Separately, a winding up application has been made against one of the parties to the arbitration in the jurisdiction in which it is incorporated. An arbitral award is obtained against the potentially insolvent company. That company has assets in Hong Kong, against which the creditor is now seeking to enforce their rights.
The unanimous decision by the Full Court of the Federal Court in Templeton v Australian and Securities Investments Commission [2015] FCAFC 137 confirms that the concept of proportionality is a well-recognised factor in considering the question of reasonable remuneration for an insolvency practitioner, and that, in assessing a remuneration claim, the Court can take into account the quality and complexity of the work as well as the value and nature of any property dealt with and the time reasonably spent.
General introduction to trust margin trading
The Grand Court of the Cayman Islands (the Court) recently ruled in favour of Primeo Fund (in official liquidation) (Primeo) in its ongoing representative proceedings with the Additional Liquidator of Herald Fund SPC (in official liquidation) (Herald).
On 4 June 2015 the Cayman Islands Grand Court ruled in favour of Primeo Fund (Primeo), in the ongoing Representative Proceedings between Primeo and Herald Fund SPC (Herald). The Court had to construe section 37(7)(a) of the Companies Law. Although the Court's detailed reasons are still awaited, it is clear from the Court's decision that section 37(7)(a) does not apply to redeeming investors whose shares have been redeemed prior to the commencement of the liquidation.
Strike off is the procedure of removing a company from the Register of Companies (the Register) following which the company will cease to exist.
Under the Companies (Guernsey) Law, 2008 (the Companies Law), a company may be struck off in one of three situations:
- if the company is defunct;
- if the company is defaulting; or
- if the company itself applies to be voluntarily struck off.
Strike off by the Registrar of Companies
The Registrar of Companies (the Registrar) has the power pursuant to the Companies (Guernsey) Law, 2008 (the Companies Law) to strike off companies which are either defunct or defaulting.
On 31 March, 2015, the Supreme People’s Court issued four model cases, including Shagang LLC. (Shagang) v. Kaitian LLC.(Kaitian), a case in relation to an objection to enforcement of a distribution plan. In the case, the Court has referred to the Deep Rock Doctrine originated from the United States, states for the first time that shareholders whose capital contribution is insufficient shall be subordinated to external creditors of the company with respect to their payable debts.