The Patent Office's decision in McCann as Liquidator of ACN 137 233 919 v Molnar [2017] APO 30 explores interesting territory for liquidators and insolvency professionals – the intersection of insolvency and intellectual property.
On 2 October 2015, a company which had gone into liquidation, Sax, filed a request to amend the ownership of a patent application from itself to its sole director, Ms Molnar, pursuant to a sale agreement by which Sax had sold all of its intellectual property to Ms Molnar for $55,000. The Patent Office recorded the amendment on 16 October 2015.
Some of the most far-reaching Australian insolvency law changes are taking effect. These new laws will restrict the enforceability of a whole class of common clauses in contracts –so called 'ipso facto' clauses.
In this edition of FINSights, we explore what these changes mean for financiers, and outline key tips and issues they should consider as we move forward into the new regime.
What are ipso facto clauses?
Introduction
In late 2015, the High Court handed down its decision in Commissioner of Taxation v Australian Building Systems Pty Ltd (in liq) [2015] HCA 48. The High Court held (by a majority of 3:2) that, in the absence of an assessment, a liquidator is not required to retain funds from asset sale proceeds in order to meet a tax liability which could become payable as a result of a capital gain made on the sale. In doing so, the majority of the High Court affirmed the decision of the Full Federal Court and provided long awaited guidance to liquidators, receivers and administrators.
On 28 March 2017, the Australian Government announced its proposals to reform the law relating to insolvent trading, and the right to terminate contracts based on insolvency ('ipso facto clauses'). MinterEllison made a detailed submission on the proposals which can be found here.
Secured Creditor’s Priority Over Unremitted GST/HST: SCC Grants Callidus Capital Corporation Leave to Appeal
On March 22, 2018, the Supreme Court of Canada granted Callidus Capital Corporation (the “Secured Creditor”) leave to appeal the Federal Court of Appeal decision that interpreted subsection 222(3) of the Excise Tax Act (Canada) (the “ETA”) as giving the Crown super priority to property received by a secured creditor from a tax debtor before bankruptcy.
On March 22, 2018, the Supreme Court of Canada granted Callidus Capital Corporation (the “Secured Creditor”) leave to appeal the Federal Court of Appeal decision that interpreted subsection 222(3) of the Excise Tax Act (Canada) (the “ETA”) as giving the Crown super priority to property received by a secured creditor from a tax debtor before bankruptcy.
Le 22 mars 2018, la Cour suprême du Canada a accordé à Callidus Capital Corporation (le « créancier garanti ») l’autorisation d’interjeter appel de la décision de la Cour d’appel fédérale dont l’interprétation du paragraphe 222(3) de la Loi sur la taxe d’accise (Canada) (la « LTA ») donne à la Couronne la priorité absolue sur les biens reçus par un créancier garanti d’un débiteur fiscal avant la faillite.
Earlier this year, we wrote here about the decision in I.D.H. Diamonds NV v Embee Diamond Technologies Inc., 2017 SKQB 79, where Mr. Justice Layh held:
Affinity Credit Union 2013 v. Vortex Drilling Ltd. 2017 SKQB 228