This week’s TGIF considers the decision of Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v BE100 Property Investments Pty Ltd [2016] FCA 597 where the court found that a deed administrator acted unreasonably by attempting to terminate a deed of company arrangement immediately before a meeting of creditors.

Legislation and proposed legislation

Government consults on proposals for technology neutrality in the distribution of company meeting communications

The Government has proposed a technology neutral mode of distributing company meeting notices and materials which aims to facilitate innovation and reduce economic and time costs for companies, while maintaining an appropriate level of shareholder engagement.

Background

On 7 December 2015, the Australian Government released its "National Innovation and Science Agenda" ("Agenda"). In the Agenda, the Government outlined its intention to make three significant reforms to Australia's insolvency laws, adopting the recommendations of the Productivity Commission ("Commission") in its report, "Business Set-Up, Transfer and Closure" ("Report"), released on the same day as the Agenda:

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 issue of how causation can be established has been one significant debate in Australian securities class actions involving alleged breaches of the Corporations Act by corporations. It has been unresolved whether shareholders must prove individual reliance on the contravening conduct of companies, or if the conduct affects the market price of shares purchased and/or sold by shareholders is sufficient.

This week’s TGIF considers In the matter of Banksia Securities Limited (in liquidation) (receivers and managers appointed)[2016] NSWSC 357 in which the Court uses its broad remedial powers to appoint special purpose receivers.


BACKGROUND

WHO SHOULD READ THIS

• Industry participants in the construction sector.

THINGS YOU NEED TO KNOW

• The deadline for comments on the Improving Bankruptcy and Insolvency Laws Proposals Paper is 27 May 2016.

WHAT YOU NEED TO DO

The NSW Supreme Court recently handed down its decision in Re HIH Insurance Limited (In Liq)^[1]. This long-running saga began with the collapse 15 years ago of Australia’s (then) second largest insurance company, HIH Insurance Limited, and has since seen a royal commission, the imprisonment of various senior management figures, and losses totalling more than $5 billion.

This week’s TGIF considers the decision of Crowe-Maxwell v Frost [2016] NSWCA 46 in which the Court held that a liquidator did not discharge his onus of proving relevant transactions were unreasonable director-related transactions.

BACKGROUND

CGU Insurance Limited v Blakeley [2016] HCA 2

Background

The High Court recently heard an appeal brought by CGU Insurance from a decision in the Supreme Court of Victoria, challenging a declaration that CGU was liable to indemnify Akron Roads Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (“Akron”) in interrelated proceedings.