Key Points:
While shareholders may only need to establish indirect market causation, there are still significant obstacles for establishing shareholder claims.
Do plaintiffs in a shareholder class action have to show they relied upon misleading or deceptive conduct, or is it enough that the market in general relied upon them, which then affected the share price?
The Australian Government is proposing to constrain certain "ipso facto" clauses ‒ a move which could make flip clauses void. The closing date for submissions is Friday 27 May 2016.
How would changes to ipso facto clauses affect securitisation?
Key Points:
Although they should always keep time-frames very much in mind, the decision in BKA Practice Co Pty Ltd gives liquidators greater scope to find all possible time-frames in which they have to work.
Key Points:
Companies that have leasing as a small and irregular part of their overall business still must comply with the PPSA if their interests in leased goods are to be protected.
Key Points:
In some circumstances a plaintiff/claimant can bypass a defendant (even an insolvent one) and seek a declaration against the defendant's insurer.
The High Court has confirmed that, if a defendant is insolvent, the plaintiff may seek a declaration that the defendant's insurer is liable to indemnify the defendant, at least when:
Key Points:
A Senate Economics References Committee has recommended that the Commonwealth enact uniform national security of payment legislation, albeit with a target of around 2018 for implementation.
Security of payment (SOP) reform discussion papers were released by the Queensland and New South Wales Governments in the run up to Christmas. That timing happened to coincide with the publication by the Senate Economics References Committee of its report "'I just want to be paid': Insolvency in the Australian Construction Industry".
Late last year, the High Court handed down its decision in Commissioner of Taxation v Australian Building Systems Pty Ltd (in liq) [2015] HCA 48. The High Court held (by a majority of 3:2) that, in the absence of an assessment, a liquidator is not required to retain funds from asset sale proceeds in order to meet a tax liability which could become payable as a result of a capital gain made on the sale.
Key Points:
Complex cross-border issues can be dealt with relatively easily under the Cross-Border Insolvency Act as long as flexibility is built into the relevant orders.
Key Points:
You can lead a director to the safe harbour, but you can't make him drink.
The Government's new approach to insolvency is long on rhetoric about risk taking and the need to remove the stigma of business failure.
However, it is short on detailed consideration of exactly why we have legal rules for corporate and personal insolvency.
Those rules aim to balance the interests of creditors against the need to encourage business start-ups.
Yesterday the High Court handed down its decision in Commissioner of Taxation v Australian Building Systems Pty Ltd (in liq) [2015] HCA 48. The High Court held (by a majority of 3:2) that, in the absence of an assessment, a liquidator is not required to retain funds from asset sale proceeds in order to meet a tax liability which could become payable as a result of a capital gain made on the sale. In doing so, the majority of the High Court affirmed the decision of the Full Federal Court and provided long awaited guidance to liquidators, receivers and administrators.