There are unique and competing interests between the United States Bankruptcy Code1 and federal and state environmental laws. One of the primary purposes of the Bankruptcy Code is to allow a debtor to have a "fresh start." On the other hand, environmental laws are intended to require responsible parties to comply with environmental standards for the protection of human health and the environment. As a result of these competing interests, there has been extensive litigation related to the interplay between the bankruptcy and environmental regimes.
What you need to know in light of Seymour Whyte Constructions Pty Ltd v Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd (in liq)
The NSW Supreme Court recently handed down its decision in the matter of Seymour Whyte Constructions Pty Ltd v Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd (in liq); Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd (in liq) v Seymour Whyte Constructions Pty Ltd [2018] NSWSC 412, in which K&L Gates represented Seymour Whyte. The decision sheds light on numerous issues, including:
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.
On 9 March 2018, in what was a highly anticipated judgment for many liquidators, the Queensland Court of Appeal reversed the controversial first instance Supreme Court decision in the matter of Linc Energy Pty Ltd (In Liquidation)1.
Background
Shortly prior to the appointment of liquidators to Linc Energy Limited (in Liquidation) (Linc) in May 2016, the Department of Environment & Heritage Protection (Department) issued an environmental protection order (EPO) to Linc in relation to its coal seam gas project at Chinchilla in Queensland.
FASHION LAW “Style is something each of us already has, all we need to do is find it.” – Diane von Furstenberg MARCH 2018 2 | K&L Gates: Fashion Law November 2017 Welcome to another packed edition of Fashion Law! Time has flown by and as we march through 2018, we are proud to continue our long standing sponsorship of the Virgin Australia Melbourne Fashion Festival (VAMFF). The Festival is a celebration of Australian designers and our rich fashion heritage, showcasing Australian talent on an international stage.
Last year the government introduced the most significant reforms to Australia's insolvency regime for over three decades. Among other changes, reforms that will come into effect on 1 July this year (or earlier by proclamation) will have a significant impact on the ability for counterparties to exercise certain rights under contractual provisions known as ipso facto clauses.