Skip to main content
Enter a keyword
  • Login
  • Home

    Main navigation

    Menu
    • US Law
      • Chapter 15 Cases
    • Regions
      • Africa
      • Asia Pacific
      • Europe
      • North Africa/Middle East
      • North America
      • South America
    • Headlines
    • Education Resources
      • ABI Committee Articles
      • ABI Journal Articles
      • Covid 19
      • Conferences and Webinars
      • Newsletters
      • Publications
    • Events
    • Firm Articles
    • About Us
      • ABI International Board Committee
      • ABI International Member Committee Leadership
    • Join
    ASIC issues draft guidance on insolvent trading
    2009-12-04

    In response to a degree of uncertainty as to a director's statutory duty to prevent insolvent trading, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has released a consultation paper containing a number of proposals on this fundamental duty (Consultation Paper 124: Duty to prevent insolvent trading: Guide for directors). Importantly for directors, the consultation paper (which contains a draft Regulatory Guide) identifies the factors ASIC considers when deciding to commence an investigation in relation to possible insolvent trading.

    Filed under:
    Australia, Capital Markets, Company & Commercial, Insolvency & Restructuring, Hall & Wilcox, Public company, Security (finance), Board of directors, Budget, Debt, Cashflow, Non-executive director, Australian Securities and Investments Commission, Corporations Act 2001 (Australia)
    Authors:
    James Morvell , John Bassilios
    Location:
    Australia
    Firm:
    Hall & Wilcox
    At long last - a legislative fix for the GST payable by representatives of incapacitated entities
    2010-01-12

    It has taken 12 months, but new legislative provisions are now in place to deal with the problems for representatives of incapacitated entities arising from Logan J's decision in Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v PM Development Pty Limited [2008] FCA 1,886.

    The new provisions go beyond merely addressing the outcome of PM Developments. They also introduce new obligations for representatives of incapacitated entities as well as some concessions and protections.

    Filed under:
    Australia, Insolvency & Restructuring, Tax, Clayton Utz, Regulatory compliance, Tax credit, Good faith, Goods and services tax (Australia), Constitutional amendment
    Authors:
    Andrew Sommer
    Location:
    Australia
    Firm:
    Clayton Utz
    Insolvency reform: more equity for directors and less equity for shareholders?
    2010-01-25

    Summary

    In an exciting week for insolvency, the Minister for Financial Services, Superannuation and Corporate Law has released a package of reforms to Australia’s corporate insolvency laws. This reform package includes:

    Filed under:
    Australia, Insolvency & Restructuring, Norton Rose Fulbright, Shareholder, Unsecured debt, Class action, Debt, Duty of care, Moratorium, Business judgement rule, Corporations Act 2001 (Australia)
    Authors:
    David Goldman , Steven Palmer , Chris Mcleod , Peter Schmidt
    Location:
    Australia
    Firm:
    Norton Rose Fulbright
    US Bankruptcy Court flips English decision on flip clauses in Lehman Brothers case
    2010-02-05

    On 25 January 2010, the United States Bankruptcy Court handed down its much anticipated decision in relation to an action brought in that court by two Lehman Brothers entities (the Lehman entities) against BNY Corporate Trustee Services Limited (BNY) (the US Decision).

    Filed under:
    Australia, USA, Banking, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Securitization & Structured Finance, Clayton Utz, Bankruptcy, Swap (finance), Default (finance), Lehman Brothers, Title 11 of the US Code, Court of Appeal of England & Wales, United States bankruptcy court
    Location:
    Australia, USA
    Firm:
    Clayton Utz
    Federal government steps in to overturn Sons of Gwalia ruling
    2010-02-17

    The High Court of Australia’s Sons of Gwalia Ltd v Margaretic (Sons of Gwalia) decision recognised an aggrieved shareholder’s claim for damages (in relation to the acquisition of shares) on equal footing with those of an insolvent company’s other unsecured creditors. Dispute Resolution Associate, Justin Le Blond, examines the Government’s response to the decision.

    Filed under:
    Australia, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Piper Alderman, Bond market, Shareholder, Unsecured debt, Debt, Misrepresentation, Liquidation, Corporate bond, Distressed securities, Corporations Act 2001 (Australia), High Court of Australia
    Location:
    Australia
    Firm:
    Piper Alderman
    Significant developments in schemes
    2010-02-17

    There have recently been a number of significant developments in relation to schemes of arrangement. These include:

    • the Federal Court refusing to make orders convening a meeting of CSR’s shareholders to vote on a demerger proposal by way of scheme, on public policy and commercial morality grounds relating to CSR’s potential asbestos liabilities
    • the Government’s corporate law advisory body recommending significant reforms to the scheme regime, and
    • developments regarding ‘hostile schemes’.

    Each of these developments is discussed below.

    Filed under:
    Australia, Insolvency & Restructuring, Herbert Smith Freehills LLP, Shareholder, Renewable energy, Interest, Liability (financial accounting), Due diligence, Voting, Federal Court of Australia
    Authors:
    Tony Damian , Andrew Rich
    Location:
    Australia
    Firm:
    Herbert Smith Freehills LLP
    Liquidators’ liability for GST – draft legislation released
    2009-07-31

    Exposure draft legislation has been released which proposes amendments to the GST legislation to make it clear that liquidators and other representatives of incapacitated entities are liable for GST on transactions within the scope of their appointment.

    Date of effect

    It is proposed that the main operative provisions of the legislation have effect retrospectively from the commencement of the GST Act on 1 July 2000.

    Background

    Filed under:
    Australia, Insolvency & Restructuring, Tax, Norton Rose Fulbright, Tax exemption, Bankruptcy, Unsecured debt, Dividends, Tax credit, Consideration, Liquidation, Goods and services tax (Canada), Liquidator (law), Aircraft registration, Goods and services tax (Australia), Goods and Services Tax (New Zealand), Constitutional amendment, Federal Court of Australia
    Authors:
    Peter Norman
    Location:
    Australia
    Firm:
    Norton Rose Fulbright
    Sons of Gwalia and the CAMAC report – implications for shareholders and creditors
    2009-08-12

    Effectively, the High Court held that aggrieved shareholders (shareholders whose debt arises as a result of misrepresentation or improper disclosure by the company causing the shareholder to acquire shares) would be ranked equally with the debts of other unsecured creditors.

    Filed under:
    Australia, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Piper Alderman, Shareholder, Unsecured debt, Dividends, Class action, Consideration, Debt, Misrepresentation, Liquidation, Subsidiary, Title retention clause, High Court of Justice (England & Wales)
    Location:
    Australia
    Firm:
    Piper Alderman
    Government code review response imminent
    2009-08-25

    If Departmental activity, debate in Parliament and media articles are an indication, the Federal Government’s much awaited response to the Ripoll Report is imminent.  

    Filed under:
    Australia, Franchising, Insolvency & Restructuring, Norton Rose Fulbright, Good faith, Unconscionability
    Authors:
    Stephen Giles
    Location:
    Australia
    Firm:
    Norton Rose Fulbright
    No priority for Commissioner in company liquidations through the issue of section 260-5 notices
    2009-08-28

    The High Court has further clarified the law regarding the effect of section 260-5 notices served by the Commissioner on third parties who are required to make payments to a company in liquidation.

    The effect of the decision is that the Commissioner cannot issue such a notice after a company has gone into liquidation in order to give himself a priority over other creditors for payment of a tax debt. Such a notice is void.

    Filed under:
    Australia, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Piper Alderman, Debt, Liquidation, Court costs, Corporations Act 2001 (Australia), Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Australia), Trustee
    Authors:
    Alan Jessup
    Location:
    Australia
    Firm:
    Piper Alderman

    Pagination

    • First page « First
    • Previous page ‹‹
    • …
    • Page 141
    • Page 142
    • Page 143
    • Page 144
    • Current page 145
    • Page 146
    • Page 147
    • Page 148
    • Page 149
    • …
    • Next page ››
    • Last page Last »
    Home

    Quick Links

    • US Law
    • Headlines
    • Firm Articles
    • Board Committee
    • Member Committee
    • Join
    • Contact Us

    Resources

    • ABI Committee Articles
    • ABI Journal Articles
    • Conferences & Webinars
    • Covid-19
    • Newsletters
    • Publications

    Regions

    • Africa
    • Asia Pacific
    • Europe
    • North Africa/Middle East
    • North America
    • South America

    © 2025 Global Insolvency, All Rights Reserved

    Joining the American Bankruptcy Institute as an international member will provide you with the following benefits at a discounted price:

    • Full access to the Global Insolvency website, containing the latest worldwide insolvency news, a variety of useful information on US Bankruptcy law including Chapter 15, thousands of articles from leading experts and conference materials.
    • The resources of the diverse community of United States bankruptcy professionals who share common business and educational goals.
    • A central resource for networking, as well as insolvency research and education (articles, newsletters, publications, ABI Journal articles, and access to recorded conference presentation and webinars).

    Join now or Try us out for 30 days