Graz, Austria

Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards in Austria

By Mario Kapp and Eva Pany, KAPP & PARTNER Rechtsanwälte GmbH

Arbitration is becoming increasingly important. It is the rule rather than the exception for international disputes. The reasons for this are obvious; in addition to the frequently mentioned advantage of greater flexibility compared to state court proceedings, the possibility of appointing specialised arbitrators, the shorter duration of the procedure, and, above all, the international enforceability of arbitration awards, are essential factors in why businessmen decide to conclude arbitration agreements. Both domestic and foreign arbitral awards are enforceable in Austria and are not complicated. Still, legal assistance is advisable to avoid potentially costly errors.

Continue Reading

Zagreb, Croatia

Closing a Legal Entity in Croatia

By Biljana Svaljek, Infokorp

Some projects are only designed to last a few years. Usually, in Croatia, a legal entity is established in order for a project to run smoothly or to receive government incentives. Since the annual financial statements have to be submitted even when there were no transactions, entrepreneurs should close the company when it is no longer needed. There are two ways of closing a legal entity that do not include filing for bankruptcy: the regular liquidation process and the shortened cessation of business activity without liquidation.

Continue Reading

Sydney, Australia

Is a Corporate Trustee’s Right of Indemnity “Property of the Company”?

By Andrew Lacey and Danyal Ibrahim, McCabe Curwood

On 19 June 2019, the High Court of Australia handed down a significant decision pertaining to corporate trustees in Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts Australia Pty Limited vs Commonwealth of Australia [2019] HCA 20, also referred to as the “Amerind appeal”. It is settled law in Australia that although personally liable for trust liabilities, a corporate trustee has a right to use trust assets to indemnify itself in respect of trust liabilities. In the Amerind appeal, the High Court was faced with the question of whether this right of indemnity was “property of the company” within the meaning of Australian corporations law. The trial judge answered this question in the negative, reasoning that the right of indemnity was “held on trust for the trust creditors” rather than personal property of the trustee.

Continue Reading

Sydney Town Hall and Queen Victoria Building

The ATO’s Backflip on a Receiver’s Obligation to Retain Money

By Tony Nunes and Harrison Dell, Kelly+Partners Chartered Accountants

The Australian Taxation Offce has departed from its view that a receiver has an obligation to “account for” tax out of income, profit, or gains derived by them in their representative capacity. The ATO backflip is due to the recent High Court decision in Commissioner of Taxation vs Australian Building Systems (in liq) [2015] HCA 48.

Continue Reading

New York, USA

Second Circuit Holds Bankruptcy Code’s Avoidance Provisions Apply Extraterritorially

By Leslie A. Berkoff, Moritt Hock & Hamroff LLP

On 25 February 2019, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision in the case of Picard, trustee for the liquidation of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC (“Madoff Securities”). The trustee alleged that Madoff Securities fraudulently transferred property to certain foreign feeder fund customers, who subsequently transferred it to other foreign entities. The trustee sought to recover these funds from the appellees, contending that the transfers were avoidable as fraudulent conveyances pursuant to §548(a)(1)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code, and that they should thus be recoverable under §550(a)(2).

Continue Reading

Rothenburg ob der Tauber, Germany

Highest Court Ruling Saves Costs for Shareholders’ Approval in a German Limited Liability Company (GmbH)

By Dr Angelika Baumhof and Christian Pflaeger, Jakoby Dr. Baumhof - Wirtschaftsprüfer Steuerberater Rechtsanwälte

For a long time, it was uncertain whether a notarised shareholders’ resolution of approval is required in the case of a German limited company (GmbH) selling all or substantially all of its assets. It was clear that a shareholders’ resolution of approval is required, but not its form. On 08 January 2019, the German Federal High Court of Justice (II ZR 364/18) ruled that the legal provision § 179a AktG (German Stock Corporation Act) does not apply by analogy to German limited companies (GmbHs). Section 179a AktG stipulates that the sale of the business of a German stock company requires a notarised resolution of the meeting of the stockholders with not less than a majority of three fourths, otherwise the transaction is null and void.

Continue Reading

industrial area, Linz, Austria

Liquidation Procedures in Austria

By Raffaela Lödl-Klein and Mario Kapp, KAPP & PARTNER Rechtsanwälte GmbH

In addition to founding a company, the dissolution of a company should also be considered. In Austria there are two main procedures used to liquidate an Austrian company:

Continue Reading

More Articles ...

GGI Logo 70x50px

GGI Geneva Group
International AG

Schaffhauserstrasse 550
P.O. Box 286
8052 Zurich


T: +41 44 2561818
F: +41 44 2561811
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.