Akers as a joint foreign representative of Saad Investments Company Limited (in Official Liquidation) v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [2014] FCAFC 57

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Akers as a joint foreign representative of Saad Investments Company Limited (in Official Liquidation) v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [2014] FCAFC 57 Citation: Akers as a joint foreign representative of Saad Investments Company Limited (in Official Liquidation) v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [2014] FCAFC 57

Appeal from: Akers (as joint foreign representative) v Saad Investments Company Limited; In the matter of Saad Investments Company Limited (in official liquidation) [2013] FCA 738

Parties: STEPHEN JOHN AKERS AS A JOINT FOREIGN REPRESENTATIVE OF SAAD INVESTMENTS COMPANY LIMITED (IN OFFICIAL LIQUIDATION) (A COMPANY REGISTERED IN THE CAYMAN ISLANDS), HUGH DICKSON AS A JOINT FOREIGN REPRESENTATIVE OF SAAD INVESTMENTS COMPANY LIMITED (IN OFFICIAL LIQUIDATION) (A COMPANY REGISTERED IN THE CAYMAN ISLANDS), MARK BYERS AS A JOINT FOREIGN REPRESENTATIVE OF SAAD INVESTMENTS COMPANY LIMITED (IN OFFICIAL LIQUIDATION) (A COMPANY REGISTERED IN THE CAYMAN ISLANDS) and SAAD INVESTMENTS COMPANY LIMITED (IN OFFICIAL LIQUIDATION) (A COMPANY REGISTERED IN THE CAYMAN ISLANDS) v DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION

File number: NSD 1933 of 2013

Judges: ALLSOP CJ, ROBERTSON and GRIFFITHS JJ

Date of judgment: 14 May 2014

Catchwords: INSOLVENCY – International Cross-Border Insolvency – Company incorporated in Cayman Islands said to have made a taxable capital profit in Australia – company wound up in Cayman Islands, its centre of main interests for the purpose of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency as incorporated into Australian law by the Cross-Border Insolvency Act 2008 (Cth) – company not a registered foreign company and not amenable to being wound up in Australia – Cayman Islands winding up recognised as the foreign main proceedings – joint foreign liquidators sought transfer of funds in Australia to Cayman Islands free of any claim of the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (DCT) – whether DCT should be permitted to proceed against the funds in Australia through such proceedings as may be available, subject to equal treatment of other creditors – meaning of "adequate protection" in the Model Law – hotchpot and equality.