The Australian unit trust industry recently experienced financial difficulties. The formal legal process of handling those difficulties has revealed gaps in the Australian regulatory map.
This article highlights some of those problems and the Government’s response to them.
Background
Few now remember that Chapter 5C of the Corporations Act can trace its origins to the afternoon of 23 July 1991. For the past year, the unlisted property trust industry had been in meltdown. The value of the assets held by the industry had fallen over 20%. Investors were scrambling to get out, and collapses seemed imminent.
With REDgroup administrators, Ferrier Hodgson, desperately searching for a buyer for REDgroup's Australian book business, the consequences for franchisees remains uncertain. Whilst the nine remaining Borders bookstores are set to close, no decision has yet been made on the future of Angus & Robertson (A&R).
In another recent decision in the cross-border insolvency proceedings concerning Cayman-based Caledonian Bank, the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of the Bahamas acceded to the petition for Caledonian Bank Limited (In Liquidation Under Supervision of the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands) to be wound up as a foreign company pursuant to Section 185(d)(ii) of the Companies Winding-up Amendment Act 2011, thereby exercising its jurisdiction for ancillary winding-up proceedings to be entered into.
Until now legal entities serving as board members, directors, or liquidators of companies could choose whether to subject themselves to VAT for the services they rendered. But according to the Belgian VAT administration’s published decision ET.125.180 on 20 November 2014, this optional regime will be abolished from 1 January 2015, making these entities liable for VAT mandatorily.
On 6 November 2008, the Belgian House of Representatives adopted a bill on the continuity of companies. Although the Senate has exercised its right to examine the bill and may propose amendments until 26 January 2009, we thought it useful to go ahead and address this new bill, which will replace the Act of 17 July 1997 on composition with creditors (Wet op het gerechtelijk akkoord/Loi sur le concordat judiciaire).
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Q1. Is it possible to appoint a receiver over assets which have been charged by a British Virgin Islands (‘BVI’) company (a ‘Company’) under a security document?
A1. Yes, provided that the security interest which has been granted by the Company to the beneficiary (the ‘mortgagee’) over the Company’s assets allows the mortgagee to appoint a receiver. Appointing a receiver is probably the most common way of enforcing security interests granted by Companies.
While Canada’s legal system will be familiar to many foreign investors and companies, the Canadian legal system and laws have a number of unique aspects that might surprise you. Understanding these unique aspects of Canadian law is critical to your business success in Canada. Gowling WLG understands the challenges of establishing and conducting business in this country. With offices in major cities across Canada, we provide effective counsel and insightful business solutions that help our clients access the full potential of the Canadian marketplace.
The importance of security holders accurately registering their interest on the Personal Property Securities Register (PPSR) to create a valid, enforceable interest is constantly emphasised in commentary and cases. It is accepted that an error in a grantor’s identifier is likely to be fatal to a PPSR registration1, often resulting in a creditor’s unperfected interest vesting in a company upon it entering administration or liquidation. However, a recent decision of the New South Wales Supreme Court illustrates that a defective registration may be cured without losing priority.
When the liquidator of a company comes knocking on a creditor’s door, it is to echoes of "Queue jumper!" reverberating in the background.
Essentially, one of a liquidator's first tasks when appointed is to identify whether any creditors have been given 'preferential treatment' - that is, whether they have been paid some or all of their debt just prior to the company's liquidation and at the expense of other creditors.