The Bottom Line:

In collaboration with our foreign law firm partners, we continue to update our chart of COVID-19 measures taken by governments around the world. Today’s update includes new information for many countries as indicated in the chart: Global Government Measures Taken in Response to COVID-19.

The recent Supreme Court of Victoria decision in Lofthouse v Environmental Consultants International Pty Ltd & Ors [2012] VSC 416 outlines the factors the Court will take into account when considering whether to make a pooling order and considers when a liquidator may be remunerated out of the assets of pooled companies.

Background

The High Court of Australia is expected soon to hand down its judgment in Lehman Brothers v City of Swan. It is likely that this judgment will definitively determine whether Deeds of Company Arrangement under Pt 5.3A of the Corporations Act (“the Act”) are able to force creditors to give releases to third parties. 

Introduction

The New South Wales Supreme Court has found a solicitor liable for facilitating unlawful ‘phoenix’ activity.1 Phoenix activity consists of transferring business assets out of an old debt-laden company (which subsequently goes into liquidation) to a new debt free company. The new company carries on the business of the old company; but the assets are put beyond the reach of the creditors of the old company.

The House of Lords has ruled that English assets of the HIH group of companies are to be remitted to the Australian liquidators for distribution under Australian law. This briefing discusses the background to McGrath and another and others v Riddell and others [2008] UKHL 21 and the implications of the ruling.

Background

The House of Lords recently had to consider whether the English court should remit assets when faced with a request to do so by a foreign court.

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

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.

Le créancier d’une société déclarée en faillite doit effectuer une déclaration de créances auprès du greffe du tribunal de commerce qui a déclaré la faillite en mentionnant le montant de sa créance et le privilège éventuel dont il peut se prévaloir. Dans l’hypothèse où le produit de la réalisation des actifs de la société faillie/en liquidation est suffisant, ce privilège permettra de récupérer à l’issue de la procédure de faillite un éventuel dividende.

On Friday 1 April, the Court of Appeal handed down its much awaited written judgment in Westford Special Situations Fund Limited v Barfield Nominees et al. The decision has far reaching consequences, not only for BVI funds, but also for all types of BVI corporate vehicles. The case directly and indirectly dealt with four major issues:-