Simona Kornhaas v Thomas Dithmar (Case C-594/14)
The ECJ have ruled that a director of an English company that had entered into insolvency proceedings in Germany is liable to reimburse the company under German law for payments made after the company became insolvent.
Yesterday the High Court handed down its decision in Commissioner of Taxation v Australian Building Systems Pty Ltd (in liq) [2015] HCA 48. The High Court held (by a majority of 3:2) that, in the absence of an assessment, a liquidator is not required to retain funds from asset sale proceeds in order to meet a tax liability which could become payable as a result of a capital gain made on the sale. In doing so, the majority of the High Court affirmed the decision of the Full Federal Court and provided long awaited guidance to liquidators, receivers and administrators.
A Singapore entity who had entered into a joint venture with an Indonesian entity brought suit in Singapore. The Indonesian entity owned shares in an Australian company. The Singapore entity made an ex parte application to the Supreme Court of Western Australia ("Supreme Court") to freeze the shareholding interests. The court granted the application, but the Court of Appeal dismissed the freezing order. The High Court reversed.
High Court says "Yes"
Need to know
In a win for creditors of insolvent companies, on 10 December 2015 the High Court determined that the obligation of a liquidator under section 254(1)(d) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth) (1936 Act) to retain sufficient funds to pay tax on assets realised during the winding up only arises after a tax assessment has been made. If the funds are distributed prior to a tax assessment being made, then the obligation does not arise.
Key Points
On 10 December 2015, a majority of the High Court of Australia ruled inCommissioner of Taxation v Australian Building Systems Pty Ltd (In Liquidation)1 that liquidators are not obliged to, and are not personally liable for, failing to retain sufficient funds for the purpose of discharging a tax liability until the Commissioner issues a notice of assessment.
What does this mean for practitioners?
On 7 December 2015, the Federal Government released the National Innovation and Science Agenda, delivering a range of new initiatives. Among the key focus areas, the Government highlighted insolvency law as a primary area overdue for reform. Whilst not introducing wholesale reforms to mimic the United States ‘Chapter 11’ framework, the targeted reforms seek to eliminate the stigma associated with business failure.
Edgeworth Capital Luxembourg Sarl (2) Aabar Block Sarl V Glenn Maud [2015] EWHC 3464 (Comm)
The High Court in England has ruled on whether Spanish Law has the effect of extinguishing third party guarantees when the beneficiary of the guaranteed liabilities enters into insolvency proceedings in Spain.
On 1 December 2015, we wrote about the decision of His Honour Judge Chivell of the District Court of South Australia in Matthews v The Tap Inn Pty Ltd [2015] SADC 108.
Marsden v Screenmasters Australia provides guidance to liquidators who commence and continue proceedings, pursuant to funding arrangements, when met with arguments that the proceedings will not confer a benefit to creditors.
WHAT HAPPENED?