Yesterday 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.
A Commentary on Recent Legal Developments by the Canadian Appeals Monitor
Since our last post, the Supreme Court has released a significant trilogy of judgments involving issues of federal paramountcy and the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (the “BIA”).
In the spring of 2010, BioSyntech, a start-up biotechnology company, developing a cartilage-repair product, BST-Car Gel, filed a Notice of Intention to make a proposal under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act. In the subsequent bankruptcy proceedings, the intellectual property relating to the BST-Car Gel was sold.
The High Court has granted special leave to appeal the decision in Commissioner of Taxation v Australian Building Systems Pty Ltd(in liq) [2014] FCAFC 133 which held that a liquidator is not required to retain funds from the proceeds of sale of an asset to pay tax before an assessment is issued.
Practical Implications
The FSI Report has recommended that Government should consult with relevant stakeholders to consider the introduction of 'safe harbour' provisions for directors engaged in restructuring efforts, and the suspension of ipso facto clauses during a restructuring.
Minter Ellison supports reform in both of these areas.
Australia's insolvent trading laws are among the strictest of any country. A director may become personally liable for new debts that are incurred by the company, if the director has reason to 'suspect' insolvency.
The British Columbia Court of Appeal recently released a helpful decision applying principles of discoverability to determine when a limitation period begins to run. In Roberts v. E.
Pan Canadian Mortgage Group v. 679972 B.C. Ltd., 2013 BCSC 1078 (Pan Canadian), addresses the nature and priority of a purchaser’s lien, which, in general terms, is a financial charge that results when a purchaser pays a deposit toward the purchase price under a contract of purchase and sale.
The recent decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in msi Spergel Inc. v. I.F. Propco Holdings (Ontario) 36 Ltd., 2013 ONCA 550 (“msi Spergel”) confirms that the Court will not suspend, extend or otherwise vary the general two-year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002 (the “Limitations Act”) unless there is express statutory authority to do so.
During the spring of 2012, the Canadian Appeals Monitor posted a five-part series on the Supreme Court’s judgments in Van Breda, Black, and