In Cato Brand Partners Pty Ltd v Air India Ltd the Supreme Court was required to consider whether or not a foreign company had grounds to challenge an application for a winding up order in circumstances where it had not sought to set aside a statutory demand within the required 21 day period.

Last Friday, Justice Brereton finally published his reasons in Sakr Nominees Pty Ltd [2016] NSWSC 709, the latest in a series of controversial decisions on insolvency practitioner remuneration. 

In Sakr, consistently with his Honour’s previous remuneration decisions:

On January 1, 2016, the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act (UVTA) was enacted in Kentucky and can be found at KRS 378A.005 e seq.  The UVTA replaces KRS 378, which contained KRS 378.010, the Kentucky fraudulent conveyance statute, and KRS 378.060, the Kentucky preference statute.  Nationally, the UVTA will replace the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (“UFTA”).  According to the Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, California, Georgia, Idaho, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Carolina, and North Dakota have joined Kentucky in enacting the UVTA. 

On 7 December 2015, the Federal Government released the National Innovation and Science Agenda, delivering a range of new initiatives. Among the key focus areas, the Government highlighted insolvency law as a primary area overdue for reform. Whilst not introducing wholesale reforms to mimic the United States ‘Chapter 11’ framework, the targeted reforms seek to eliminate the stigma associated with business failure.

The insolvency of one of the principals, contractors or subcontractors can seriously impact a construction project at all levels of the supply chain. Infrastructure and Projects partner, Ted Williams look at the issue and some practical thoughts on drafting contracts to help mitigate these risks.

“How did you go bankrupt?" Two ways. Gradually, then suddenly.” ? Ernest Hemingway

Much has been written of late about data breaches and the liabilities for the unauthorized acquisition of Personally Identifiable Information (PII) from institutions, including financial institutions. But what about when the alleged “breach”--the release of information --is voluntarily and/or legally compelled? What are the risks for creditors who take collateral, in security for the repayment of debt, containing PII data? What are the risks to businesses when they transfer assets that include PII? What liabilities do they face? What are the rights of customers?

Much has been written of late about data breaches and the liabilities for the unauthorized acquisition of Personally Identifiable Information (PII) from institutions. But what about when the alleged “breach”--the release of information --is voluntarily and/or legally compelled? What are the risks to businesses when they sell assets that include PII? What liabilities do they face? What are the rights of customers?

Radio Shack – The pioneer of PII data collection

It is a well understood legal requirement that any time security is granted, it needs to be registered. Failure to register collateral granted as security according to the requirements of the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) can result in the property vesting in the company in administration or liquidation. However in certain circumstances the court may make an order extending the time for registration, even after an insolvency event in respect of the grantor.

In Van Wijk (Trustee), in the matter of Power Infrastructure Services Pty Ltd v Power Infrastructure Services Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 1430, the Federal Court considered whether it was appropriate to appoint provisional liquidators to a company on the just and equitable ground in circumstances where a winding up application is on foot. Senior Associate, Sarah Drinkwater and Associate, Tim Logan, discuss the case and its implications.

The application

In October, we issued an Insolvency Newsflash with respect to the decision in Re: Joe & Joe Developments Pty Ltd (subject to a Deed of Company Arrangement) [2014] NSWSC 1444. On 1 December 2014, a further judgement was handed down by the Supreme Court of New South Wales (Re: Joe & Joe Developments Pty Ltd (subject to a Deed of Company Arrangement) [2014] NSWSC 1703), which considered additional matters and included orders for costs.