A note on In the matter of Restore Builders Limited En Désastre [2024] JRC 290.
The Royal Court of Jersey has recently held, for the first time, that the actions of a Jersey company director constituted wrongful trading and ordered that he be personally liable for the company's debts and disqualified as a director for ten years.
Introduction
Two recent Supreme Court of Canada decisions demonstrate that the corporate attribution doctrine is not a one-size-fits-all approach.
Court approval of a sale process in receivership or Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”) proposal proceedings is generally a procedural order and objectors do not have an appeal as of right; they must seek leave and meet a high test in order obtain it. However, in Peakhill Capital Inc. v.
The Jersey insolvency legislative and common law framework provides an adaptable and commercially focussed regime for the supervision and handling of the liquidation and restructuring of Jersey entities. This note addresses the different mechanisms by which Jersey incorporated companies may be wound up.
Winding up of a solvent company
A solvent, or "summary", winding up commences where the shareholders voluntarily pass, or are deemed to pass, and file, a special resolution to do so and the directors have confirmed either that the company:
With two decisions (No. 1895/2018 and No. 1896/2018), both filed on 25 January 2018, the Court of Cassation reached opposite conclusions in the two different situations
The case
The Constitutional Court (6 December 2017) confirmed that Art. 147, para. 5, of the Italian Bankruptcy Law does not violate the Constitution as long as it is interpreted in a broad sense
The case
With the decision No. 1195 of 18 January 2018, the Court of Cassation ruled on the powers of the extraordinary commissioner to require performance of pending contracts and on the treatment of the relevant claims of the suppliers
The case
The Court of Cassation with a decision of 25 September 2017, No. 22274 confirms that Art. 74 of the Italian Bankruptcy Law provides a special rule, which does not apply to cases to which it is not explicitly extended
The case
With the decision No. 1649 of 19 September 2017 the Court of Appeals of Catania followed the interpretation according to which a spin-off is not subject to the avoiding powers of a bankruptcy receiver
The case