The Bankruptcy Code often instructs a trustee or debtor to perform an act or make an election within a certain time. Sometimes the relevant provisions are intended to benefit a party in interest who is affected by a debtor’s or trustee’s action or election. Unfortunately, some of the provisions that prescribe a trustee or debtor to act fail to provide a remedy to the affected party in interest in the event the trustee or debtor does not act in compliance with the Code.

In handing over any documents in litigation or Court process, you must assess whether or not the documents have tax relevance.

The Court will closely examine the relevant transactions involving the accounts and form a view – which may be an impressionistic one – as to the likely extent of the interest of each client (or each client group) in those accounts.

The updates to the Guidance Note provide useful guidance on disclosure requirements in the context of the safe harbour reforms but ultimately, the status quo continues.

The ASX has updated its continuous disclosure guidance for entities in financial distress to address uncertainty following the recent introduction of the insolvent trading safe harbour provisions into the Corporations Act. While the ASX has provided useful guidance, unsurprisingly, the position has not changed and directors must continually assess compliance with continuous disclosure requirements.

Following a landmark decision in the Full Federal Court, employees will retain their priority to payment of their entitlements in a company liquidation, even where the company is a corporate trustee of a trust.

Certified to the Privacy Shield? Great! So you’re done in terms of GDPR compliance, right? Think again.

As we have discussed in previous newsletters, no matter where you are in the world, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) applies to you if you are collecting or processing personal data of any EU individual. The law goes into effect in May.

In our Intellectual Property Law Update of December 2016 we advised you of the recent decision of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the First Circuit Court of Appeals (the “BAP”) in Mission Products Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology (In re Tempnology, LLC) upholding the rights of a licensee of trademarks to continue use of trademarks after the debtor’s rejection of the trademark license. As set forth below, the First Circuit recently reversed that decision.  

The liquidators were not bound to cause Linc to comply with the EPO from the date of the disclaimer.

As deleveraging to control transactions continue to be part of the legal landscape in Australia, we anticipate seeing further examples, particularly where the distressed company is a listed entity. 

With the enactment of the ipso factoreform in September this year (which commences operation on 1 July 2018), it is the genuine hope of many insolvency practitioners and others in the market that voluntary administration will become a less value-destructive and, therefore, a more useful tool for company restructures.