Former One Nation senator, current Great Australian Party Leader and self-styled ‘senator in exile’ Rod Culleton has vowed to fight charges that he knowingly provided false or misleading information to a Commonwealth entity.

The basis of the allegations

Este mes apenas se han publicado resoluciones que consideremos reseñables, sólo tres de tres audiencias provinciales nos han parecido dignas de atención. A cambios las tres hacen pronunciamentos muy interesantes.

Audiencias Provinciales

Compensación de pagos entre un hotel y su operador por derivarse de una misma relación contractual.

Overview of corporate insolvency in Australia

On 28 September 2022, the Federal Government, through the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services (the Committee) commenced an inquiry into the effectiveness of Australia’s corporate insolvency laws in protecting and maximising value for the benefit of all interested parties and the economy.

The UK High Court has ruled that the obligations of third-party guarantors are not affected by a part 26A restructuring plan being sanctioned in respect of the underlying obligations. This approach mirrors the way guarantees are dealt with in a part 26 scheme of arrangement.

The case of Oceanfill Ltd. v Nuffield Health Wellbeing Ltd & Cannons Group Limited examined whether a restructuring plan under part 26A of the Companies Act 2006 (the “Act”) had the effect of releasing liability arising under a third-party guarantee.

BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA and Others [2022] UKSC 25

In a judgment handed down yesterday the Supreme Court has affirmed that a so called “creditor duty” exists for directors such that in some circumstances company directors are required to act in accordance with, or to consider the interests of creditors. Those circumstances potentially arise hen a company is insolvent or where there is a “probability” of an insolvency. We explore below the “trigger” for such a test to apply and its implications.

In this Article, José-Antonio Maurellet SC (a member of DVC and an Associate Member of 3 Verulam Buildings) and Michael Lok discuss the landmark decision just handed down by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA and others 

Where a company's liquidation is necessary, deciding who or where is best placed to administer an orderly wind down for the benefit of creditors can be difficult: the shortfall of assets in an insolvency will highlight jurisdictional differences in approach as to questions of priority, frequently territorial rather than universalist.

The Supreme Court handed down its long-awaited judgment in BTI 2014 LLC v. Sequana S.A. [2022] UKSC 25 (Supreme Court - BTI v Sequana) concerning the fiduciary duty of directors to act in good faith in the interests of the company.

The long awaited Sequana Supreme Court judgment[1] has provided some welcome clarity around the duties of the directors of a company in the "twilight zone" – i.e. where the company is facing financial difficulties.

A recent Supreme Court decision serves as a reminder for directors to take specialist legal advice at an early stage to avoid potential liability

Managing a company’s business and making strategic and operational decisions is increasingly the subject of considerable internal and external pressures.