Stakeholders have until 11 May 2018 to comment on a key part of the new ipso facto regime – the exceptions to the statutory stay on ipso facto clauses in certain categories of contracts and rights.
The new insolvency legislation commencing 1 July 2018 (Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Enterprise Incentives No. 2) Act 2017) introduces a statutory stay on the exercise of contractual rights arising by reason of certain insolvency trigger events.
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.
Background |
Background
In our previous publication on the subject, we had discussed the changes introduced by the Ordinance dated 23 November 2017 (the Ordinance), amending the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) (see our Ergo Newsflash dated 24 November 2017).
On 15 December 2017, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (Supreme Court) delivered a landmark judgment in Macquarie Bank v. Shilpi Cables, Civil Appeal 15135/2017 on whether Section 9(3)(c) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 (Code) is mandatory and whether a demand notice of an unpaid operational debt can be issued by a lawyer on behalf of the operational creditor. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals of Macquarie Bank against the judgment of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (Appellate Tribunal) in Shilpi Cable Technologies v.