Liberado el segundo tramo de la lnea ICO de avales para paliar los efectos econmicos del COVID-19, aprobada por el Real Decreto-ley 8/2020 (RDL 8/2020), se discute an estos das sobre la compatibilidad de estas garantas con operaciones de refinanciacin y reestructuracin de deuda.

En concreto, se plantean dudas que se concretan en tres momentos temporales:

In a recent decision in the Supreme Court of NSW[1], Rees J set aside a liquidator’s bid to publicly examine two senior officers of the National Rugby League (NRL), finding that examination summonses issued by the liquidator were an abuse of process and the entire liquidation process was a contrivance in order to exert commercial pressure on the NRL.

The Coronavirus Economic Response Package Omnibus Bill 2020 (Coronavirus Response Bill) was passed on 23 March 2020 and received Royal Assent on 24 March 2020 following the Federal Government’s announcements made between 12 and 22 March 2020 of its economic response to the spread of the coronavirus pandemic.

The Coronavirus Response Bill provides, amongst other legislative amendments, for temporary changes of 6 months’ duration to Australian insolvency and corporations laws to assist in managing the sudden economic shock resulting from COVID-19.

La Dirección General de los Registros y del Notariado se pronunció en esta resolución sobre la posibilidad de que el nombramiento del representante persona física de una sociedad nombrada administradora se realice a través de un apoderado de ésta, sobre la necesidad de que conste la aceptación del representante persona física y sobre la naturaleza de esta figura.

In its recent decision in the ongoing Solar Shop litigation,[1] the Full Federal Court established two key principles which will have significant ongoing implications for the conduct of unfair preference claims:

Los administradores responden de las deudas contraídas por la sociedad tras la aparición de una causa de disolución si no promueven la ordenada disolución y liquidación. Sin embargo, esta obligación se refiere a las deudas surgidas durante su cargo, de manera que no les son imputables las deudas originadas antes de su nombramiento como administradores, aunque al acceder al cargo la sociedad ya estuviera en causa de disolución.

La Sentencia del Tribunal Supremo nº1246/2019, de 25 de septiembre anula el art. 197 bis del RD 1065/2007, de 27 de julio por entender que no cuenta con habilitación legal, de modo que la potestad de dictar una liquidación de los elementos de la deuda tributaria vinculados al delito no ampara suficientemente la posibilidad de pasar tanto de culpa o remitir el expediente al Ministerio Fiscal en cualquier momento, incluso cuando ya se ha dictado la liquidación o se ha impuesto la sanción.

In Carrello,^[1] the Federal Court granted a warrant under section 530C of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the Act) allowing the liquidator of Drilling Australia Pty Ltd (the Company) to search and seize property, books and records located in storage containers belonging to the Company.

The Federal Court has considered whether a deed of company arrangement (DoCA) binds a regulator. The case involved an application by the Fair Work Ombudsman (FWO) for leave to proceed against a company in liquidation. The Court rejected the company’s argument that the FWO’s claims were extinguished by the DoCA and granted the FWO leave to pursue the claim. The outcome of the proceedings may impact the types of, and circumstances in which, claims by a regulator will not be extinguished by a DoCA.

In a decision of the Federal Court handed down on 18 October 2019 in Masters v Lombe (Liquidator); In the Matter of Babcock & Brown Limited (In Liquidation) [2019] FCA 1720, Foster J held that Babcock & Brown Limited (BBL) did not breach the continuous disclosure obligations in the Corporations Act 2001 and the ASX Listing Rules.