The recent decision of Australian Building Systems Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation [2014] FCA 116 involves a significant development in the taxation collection obligations of liquidators involved in winding up a company.

In this Alert, Special Counsel Justin Byrne and Solicitor Rachael Nyst discuss the implications of the case in regard to the need to retain an amount from sale proceeds of a property in order to meet capital gains tax (CGT) liabilities.

Key points

Key Points:

The NSW Supreme Court says it can provide directions on an administrator's commercial decision on the basis of the liability assumed by administrators and their partners.

The UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency is designed to supplement States' insolvency laws with a framework to address cross-border insolvency proceedings.

The High Court has ruled that liquidators of lessors can disclaim leases, thus terminating the leasehold interests of tenants.

However, yesterday's High Court decision in Willmott Growers Group Inc. v Willmott Forests Limited (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (In Liquidation) [2013] HCA 51 leaves open another issue: do liquidators need to get Court approval before exercising this power, and, if so, how easy or difficult would it be to get that approval?

Key Points

Key Points:

For a company to be entitled to subrogation under section 560, it must ensure that it meets the strict requirements of section 560 and does not pay entitlements directly to the relevant company's employees.

The Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) (PPSA) came into effect on 30 January 2012 and has introduced major changes for businesses that lease or hire personal property. If you lease or hire personal property it is vital that you understand how the PPSA affects your business, including what additional steps you need to take to protect your property and the consequences for not doing so, especially as the PPSA’s transitional provisions will end shortly.

What does the PPSA mean for your business?

Six month extensions to convening periods should not be seen as a fait accompli, particularly if the administrator's application is opposed.

There is a commonly held belief that courts will readily grant an administrator's application for an extension to the convening period. This might have been true once, but it is fast turning into an urban myth, judging by two recent decisions in the Federal Court.

The recent decision of Modcol Pty Ltd v National Buildplan Group Pty Ltd ^[1] addressed whether leave should be granted to a subcontractor to allow it to commence proceedings against a contractor in administration in respect of the subcontractor's rights under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW) (the SOP Act).

The NSW Government has accepted some of the key recommendations of the Recommendations of the Independent Inquiry in Construction Industry Insolvency in NSW, including the introduction of bonds. We know that the Government will:

Justice Jacobson's unwillingness to depart from the interests of the majority in relation to Nine Entertainment should give parties confidence that Schemes remain an effective way to effect debt for equity swaps or similar transactions.