Re Diffraction Diamonds DMCC [2017] EWHC 1368 (Ch)
This case deals with the English Court’s jurisdiction to wind up foreign companies, on the grounds of public interest. While it does not create new law, it is a helpful review of the authorities, particularly Re Titan International Inc [1998] 1 BVLC 102 (“Titan”).
Case Facts
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 31 January 2017, the Supreme Court of New South Wales handed down judgment in In the matter of OneSteel Manufacturing Pty Limited (administrators appointed). This important decision highlights the severe consequences that may follow from seemingly innocuous mistakes made when registering security interests.
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').
Maxcon Constructions Pty Ltd v Vadasz (No 2)
Significance
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).
Introduction
The Federal Court of Australia has handed down a decision that is a salutary reminder to directors that, in any corporate tax planning, it is important not to miss the forest for the trees. In a recent Federal Court of Australia decision, contentious tax planning was found to constitute a breach of directors’ duties for the directors involved, resulting in them becoming personally liable for ATO debts of the company.
What happened?
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.