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.

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. 

In Re Willis, Eileen Willis (Anne) applied to annul a bankruptcy order made against her on the application of her former husband, Leslie Willis.

The liquidators of Wenztro Co-operation Limited (Wenztro) appealed against the High Court's decision not to order Wenztro's former director, Mr Ellis, to produce and be examined on personal financial information including tax return and bank statements. The liquidators sought to assess Mr Ellis' judgment worthiness for the legal proceedings they had commenced against him for breaches of directors' duties.

We previously reported on the Court of Appeal decision in Trends Publishing International Ltd v Advicewise People Ltd & Ors. The case concerned a compromise under Part 14 of the Companies Act 1993 that was set aside by the High Court on the basis that the challenging creditors, who had voted against the compromise, had been unfairly prejudiced by the decision to call only one meeting of creditors.

Jollands v Gull concerns an application by the liquidators of a company to set aside insolvent transactions. The transactions involved funds from the sale of the company's business being paid, via the company's accountant, to three minority shareholders, which then transferred their shares to the respondent shareholders (or in one case, a respondent shareholder's family trust). The respondents' current accounts were in credit at the time.