A bankrupt trustee has been unsuccessful in trying to recover property of a former bankrupt more than 20 years after the date of bankruptcy. The decision of the Federal Court reinforces the limitation period in which a trustee can make a claim on any property of the bankrupt as outlined in Section 127(1) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) (Act)
Stewart v Atco Controls Pty Ltd (in Liquidation) [2014] HCA 15
The High Court this week reinforced the significance and standing of a Liquidator's equitable lien for his or her costs and expenses incurred in realising assets of a company in liquidation, as first clearly espoused by Justice Dixon in the 1933 case of Universal Distributing. Gadens acted for the successful Liquidator/Appellant in the unanimous judgment of the five High Court Justices.
The Principle
Introduction
Does the ATO have priority over secured creditors in a liquidation? Is a receiver required to account to the ATO for any tax payable out of funds received on the sale of an asset before accounting to the secured creditor? Are receivers and liquidators personally liable for the tax payable from funds received by them? Can receivers and liquidators avoid such personal liability by distributing funds received to creditors before a tax assessment arises? These issues were at the centre of a Federal Court judgment handed down on 21 February 2014.
Two days before Christmas, the Supreme Court of New South Wales delivered a bonus for the general unsecured creditors of the collapsed discount giant Retail Adventures, and confirmed the requirements for deeds of company arrangement.
Deeds of Company Arrangement
Today the High Court of Australia handed down a decision which confirms a liquidator has the green light to disclaim leasehold interests in land (Willmott Growers Group Inc v Willmott Forests Limited (receivers and managers appointed)(in liquidation)).
Due to the way in which the case came before the Courts, the High Court did not consider the application of s568B of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act).
This section allows tenants to challenge in Court the liquidator’s disclaimer.
The “safe harbor” provisions of the Bankruptcy Code protect firms that trade derivatives, and other participants in financial and commodity markets, from the rigidity that bankruptcy law imposes on most parties. Since their inception in 1982, the safe harbor statutes have gradually grown broader, to reflect a Congressional intent of protecting against secondary shocks reverberating through those markets after a major bankruptcy. The liberalizing of safe harbors traces – and may well be explained by – the rapidly expanding use of derivatives contracts generally.
ASIC suspended the Australian Financial Services Licence of LM Investment Management Limited for two years this week for being an externally managed vehicle (voluntary administrators were appointed in March 2013). The practical effect of the suspension will mean that LM Investment Management won’t continue managing its nine funds. ASIC is also investigating the complex structure of the business and their related party transactions with the principal, Peter Drake.
Oregon’s $29 million corporate excise tax claim against the taxpayers’ parent company was held to violate both the Due Process and Commerce Clauses of the U.S. Constitution by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. Oregon claimed that Washington Mutual, Inc. (WMI) was liable for its subsidiaries’ tax because WMI had (as the parent corporation) filed consolidated corporate tax returns on behalf of itself and its subsidiaries and therefore could be held jointly and severally liable for the tax due.
On January 4, 2013, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois issued an opinion that strikes a significant blow against the rights of futures customers that might otherwise enjoy the Bankruptcy Code’s safe harbor protections. The opinion, arising out of the Chapter 11 bankruptcy case of Sentinel Management Group, Inc. (Sentinel), fashions a new exception to the safe harbor protections in the event of distributions or redemptions to customers of a failed futures commission merchant (FCM).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit took a bite out of a bagel store’s bankruptcy petition by holding that sales taxes are non-dischargeable “trust fund” taxes rather than excise taxes. In Re: Michael Calabrese, Jr., No. 11-3793 (3d. Cir. July 20, 2012). After not having enough dough to pay their debts, Don’s What a Bagel, Inc. and its individual owner both filed for bankruptcy protection.