The Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Enterprise Incentives No 2) Bill 2017 was passed by the House of Representatives on 22 June 2017 and has had a second reading moved in the Senate. 

The Bill:

Following consultation on exposure draft legislation between 28 March 2017 and 24 April 2017, the Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Enterprise Incentives No.2) Bill 2017 (Cth) (Bill) was introduced into the House of Representatives and received its second reading speech on 1 June 2017.

The Bill proposes to:

This case raised the issue of when a company in financial distress (or the directors of that company) should issue a Notice of Intention to Appoint an Administrator (“NOITA”) which affords a moratorium under Schedule B1 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (“IA86”).

On 28 March 2017 the Federal Government released for public consultation draft legislation (Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Enterprise Incentives No. 2) Bill 2017 – Exposure Draft) that seeks to amend the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act) by introducing:

As part of the National Innovation and Science Agenda, Treasury has released an Exposure Draft Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Enterprise Incentives No.2) Bill 2017 which seeks to amend the Corporations Act 2001 (Corporations Act) to implement 2 key changes which are designed to promote a culture of entrepreneurship and

This case provides some useful guidance on some key aspects of oppression claims, and also illustrates that courts will be reluctant to wind up solvent companies, even where the parties are in deadlock and oppression has been established, in this case preferring to make buy out orders at a price to be determined.

You will have previously seen a landlord's consent is usually required to enable a pharmacist to assign or sell their lease to a third party.

It is usual for the landlord's consent to be specified not to be unreasonably withheld or delayed.

On a lease assignment a landlord will want to ensure that the tenant is of sufficient financial strength to be able to comply with the lease covenants (including payment of the rent).

On 30 September 2016, the Competition and Markets Authority (“CMA”) published its finding that two companies involved in the online retail of licensed sport and entertainment posters and frames had breached the Competition Act 1998 (“CA98”) by entering into agreements (or, at least, ‘concerted practices’) to artificially inflate the prices charged for certain products. A formal charge was accepted by the main protagonist, Trod Limited (in administration) (“Trod”) and fines imposed, which became payable by Trod’s administrators as of 13 October 2016.

Horton v Henry: Pensions clarified

We previously discussed the uncertainty surrounding the treatment of pensions in a bankruptcy which arose from two conflicting high court decisions: Raithatha v Williamson [2012] EWHC 909 (Ch) and Horton v Henry [2014] EWHC 4209 (Ch).

In Hinton v Wotherspoon [2016] EWHC 623 (CH) (where this firm successfully represented the trustee in bankruptcy, Lloyd Hinton of Insolve Plus Limited), the court commented that the approach in Horton v Henry [2014] EWHC 4209 (Ch) was “plainly correct”.

Bailey v Angove’s Pty Ltd [2016] UKSC Civ 47

SUMMARY

The Supreme Court in this case had to consider whether an agent’s authority to accept payments had been ended by the principal’s termination of the agency agreement or if the agent’s authority was irrevocable in spite of the termination notice and permitted the agent to receive remaining payments due from customers for goods supplied during the term of the agreement.

BACKGROUND