In the wake of the recent economic downturn caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, there will likely be a sharp rise in bankruptcy filings by businesses seeking to obtain relief from the burdens of excessive debt.1 1 Winston & Strawn’s Tax Controversy and Litigation Group litigates tax disputes in the bankruptcy courts and works in conjunction with the firm’s Bankruptcy Practice Group. Portions of this article were originally published by the author in 2008.
This week’s TGIF examines a recent Federal Court decision which considered an application to discharge summonses issued pursuant to sections 596A and 596B of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).
Key takeaways
The Court of Appeal has handed down judgment on two appeals to decide whether the appellants had standing to challenge the conduct of a trustee in bankruptcy (“the Bankruptcy Appeal”) and joint liquidators (“the Liquidation Appeal”) respectively (Brake and others v Lowes and others [2020] EWCA Civ 1491). In this article, Tim Symes, a partner in our Insolvency and Commercial Litigation teams, examines the Court of Appeal’s decision.
Speed read: The wrongful trading suspension ended on 30 September 2020 and it is important that company directors keep in mind the offence in section 214 of the Insolvency Act 1986. Although it is a civil contravention, there could be implications for the anti-money laundering regime.
Bonding companies and debtors can learn an important lesson from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Louisiana’s recent opinion on how surety bond claims are treated once a bankruptcy plan is confirmed.
The Key Issues and Background
The Court of Appeal was asked to consider two key points (together with matters, including relating to the granting of summary judgment) regarding the procedural aspects of applications in insolvency proceedings. The relevant proceedings were issued by the trustees in bankruptcy of Nicola Ide (the “Trustees”).
First, could the County Court transfer part of insolvency proceedings to the High Court?
On 29 September 2020, Chief Justice Smellie QC handed down his judgment in the Matter of Premier Assurance Group SPC Ltd (in Controllership) (FSD Cause No. 210 of 2020) confirming the powers of the controllers appointed under section 24(2)(h) of the Insurance Law, 2010 (the "Insurance Law") so as to enable them to exercise their powers as against the "world at large". In doing so, the Chief Justice held that the Court has an inherent jurisdiction to supplement section 24 of the Insurance Law to "fill the practical gap" left by that provision.
Background
TAX CONTROVERSY AND LITIGATION NEWSLETTER
----------
Focus on Tax Controversy
NOVEMBER 2020\\VOLUME 4\\ISSUE 3
IN THIS ISSUE
ARTICLES AND UPDATES Bankruptcy Court's Jurisdiction To Resolve Tax Claims2 FAQs Issued Under The CARES Act Invalid Under The APA8 Tax Court Concludes IRS Failed to Satisfy 675111
Penalty For Failure To File Form 5471 Is Not Divisible 14 Sixth Circuit Rejects Taxpayer's Judicial Estoppel Claim17
ABOUT US Winston & Strawn's Tax Controversy and Litigation Practice 20
Editors 20
The Key Issues and Background
The Court of Appeal was asked to consider two key points (together with matters, including relating to the granting of summary judgment) regarding the procedural aspects of applications in insolvency proceedings. The relevant proceedings were issued by the trustees in bankruptcy of Nicola Ide (the “Trustees”).
First, could the County Court transfer part of insolvency proceedings to the High Court?