Introduction The new meme, increasingly used to describe the current state of the economy, is a “rolling recession,” rather than the hard or soft landing many commentators expected. In other words, we are experiencing mild slumps rippling through the economy that have the potential to slow inflation without radically impacting the labour market.
A range of issues are thrown up in a work accident claim where either the claimant or defendant becomes insolvent. Less common, but it does come up in work accident claims is the insolvency of the claimant employee either before the claim is issued, during the claim or after judgment/ settlement and some implications on certain procedures and orders such as PPO. More commonly faced issues are the insolvency of the employer as an individual or a company and often in occupational illness claims a long dissolved company.
In Kennedy Civil Contracting Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) v Richard Crookes Constructing Pty Ltd v Richard Crookes Construction Pty Ltd; In the matter of Kennedy Civil Contracting Pty Ltd [2023] NSWSC 99, the NSW Supreme Court considered whether a company on the brink of liquidation can take action to enforce a payment claim under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW) (SOP Act).
One concept—“center of main interests,” or COMI for short, one of the more significant elements borrowed from international law and incorporated into Chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code—sits at the heart of the latter, enacted in 2005 as the latest U.S. legislative attempt to handle cross-border insolvencies and international restructurings.
In spite of this notion’s importance, however, bankruptcy and appellate federal courts have long divided over a thresholder issue: as of which date should a foreign debtor’s COMI be determined?
Among the measures announced by the Prime Minister and Minister of Finance of Malaysia, Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim, during his 2023 Malaysia Budget Speech on 24 February 2023 was a proposal to amend the Insolvency Act 1967 (‘the Act’) to enable bankrupts to be automatically discharged quickly.
The Finance Minister added that pending the amendment of the Act, “minor cases” involving debts of less than RM50,000 that fulfil the criteria will be immediately discharged beginning 1 March 2023.
Introduction:
On 5 October 2022, the Supreme Court delivered a landmark judgement in BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA [2022]. The decision is the first from the Supreme Court to address when, and in what circumstances, company directors owe a duty to consider the interests of the company’s creditors (‘’the creditor duty’’).
Creditor duty
In BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA the Supreme Court considered the issue of the so-called ‘creditor duty’.
On 2 March 2023 the Supreme Court of Victoria published its reasons in the matter of Atlas Gaming Holdings Pty Ltd [2023] VSC 91 (the Atlas case) in which Gadens acted on behalf of the Liquidator of four companies seeking a pooling order pursuant to section 579E of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the Act). There have been very few judgments on section 579E which was introduced in 2007 by the Corporations Amendment (Insolvency) Act 2007 (Cth) Sch 1 items 133ff and operative from 31 December 2007.
Re Kirkham International Pte Ltd (in compulsory liquidation) [2023] SGHC 19 (Kirkham) has important practical implications for liquidators. The General Division of the High Court (High Court) held that a liquidator’s appointment of solicitors, when approval is required under section 144 of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 (IRDA), cannot be retrospectively authorised.
Background
Where a commercial property is sold by a receiver or insolvency practitioner (IP), VAT must be charged on the sale if the owner had exercised and properly notified an option to tax (OTT) in respect of the property. The IP acting on behalf of the seller needs to establish whether an OTT has been made and notified so that VAT is charged , if needed. This can be difficult if company records are in disarray, directors of the insolvent company are non-cooperative and/or the IP or receiver has limited knowledge of the property and company.