The High Court has reaffirmed the test to be applied in considering an application to dismiss a bankruptcy summons grounded on a judgment.
The bankruptcy process in Ireland involves multiple steps and the debtor can seek to bring it to a halt at each step. Debtors often seek to rerun effectively the same arguments at each step, ignoring previous findings by the courts. One such step is an application to dismiss a bankruptcy summons.
The Irish High Court has determined that the liquidation of an Irish aircraft leasing company, which was a 100% subsidiary of a Russian company expressly subject to EU sanctions, rebuts the presumption that the company was controlled by the Russian parent for the purpose of EU sanctions.
This enables the liquidators to deal with the assets without costly and time-consuming derogation applications.
Background
Irish company law provides that if a charge granted by a company is not registered in the Companies Registration Office (CRO) within 21 days of its creation, it is void against a liquidator and any creditor of the company. There is a duty imposed on a company which grants a charge to register the charge in the CRO but the creditor taking the charge can also do so.
Diamond Rock Developments Ltd (the Company) granted a mortgage over a property. That mortgage was registered in the Land Registry but was not registered in the CRO.
If you supply goods, the simplest step that you can take to reduce your exposure to a customer’s insolvency is to use effective retention of title (RoT).
However not all RoT clauses are effective and we see many RoT claims rejected in insolvency.
By default, once you sell goods on credit:
- the goods belong to the customer; and
- the customer owes you the purchase price.
This means that if an insolvency practitioner (IP) is appointed to the customer:
Corporate insolvency numbers continued to appear artificially low in 2022. The expectation is that they will rise once businesses need to deal with the aftermath of Government pandemic supports and, in particular, start to pay warehoused taxes.
Introduction
The UK Supreme Court has recently delivered a landmark decision in the case of BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana S.A. [2022] UKSC 25. The decision is of great importance as the Supreme Court considered in detail whether the trigger for the directors’ duty to consider creditors’ interest is merely a real risk, as opposed to a probability of or close proximity to, insolvency.
Background
簡介
英國最高法院最近在BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana S.A. [2022] UKSC 25一案中頒下了重要裁決，其重要之處在於最高法院深入探討了董事考慮債權人權益的責任，是只需出現真正的無力償債風險便已觸發，還是在相當可能或瀕臨無力償債時才觸發。
背景
本案的第二及第三答辯人為AWA公司（「該公司」）的董事。於2009年5月，他們安排該公司向該公司唯一股東（「第一答辯人」）派發1.35億歐元的股息（「該股息」），以抵銷第一答辯人結欠該公司的債務。該公司在支付該股息時，其資產負債表及現金流均處於具償債能力的狀況。然而，該公司有一項與污染相關而金額未定的長期或然負債，導致該公司產生未來可能無力償債的真正風險。
简介
英国最高法院最近在BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana S.A. [2022] UKSC 25一案中颁下了重要裁决，其重要之处在于最高法院深入探讨了董事考虑债权人权益的责任，是只需出现真正的无力偿债风险便已触发，还是在相当可能或濒临无力偿债时才触发。
背景
本案的第二及第三答辩人为AWA公司（「该公司」）的董事。于2009年5月，他们安排该公司向该公司唯一股东（「第一答辩人」）派发1.35亿欧元的股息（「该股息」），以抵销第一答辩人结欠该公司的债务。该公司在支付该股息时，其资产负债表及现金流均处于具偿债能力的状况。然而，该公司有一项与污染相关而金额未定的长期或然负债，导致该公司产生未来可能无力偿债的真正风险。
简介
在香港，公司可透过自愿或强制清盘方式进行清盘。在债权人自愿清盘中，债权人有权监督及参与清盘过程，包括委任清盘人。然而，债权人之间可能会出现争议，而部分债权人可能希望清盘程序在法院批准下进行。最近在Re Samwell Spare Parts Limited (In Creditors’ Voluntary Liquidation) [2022] HKCFI 2851一案中，法院再次探讨关于将自愿清盘转为强制清盘的法律原则。
案情
迅泽航空备件有限公司（「该公司」）因为一项局部仲裁裁决而结欠Airbus Helicopters China HK Limited（「呈请人」）一笔重大债务。该公司通过一项特别决议案，以债权人自愿清盘方式将该公司清盘。于债权人会议举行时，另一阵营占债务总额超过50% 的关连债权人（「关连债权人」）委任了他们选择的清盘人（「清盘人」）。
簡介
在香港，公司可透過自願或強制清盤方式進行清盤。在債權人自願清盤中，債權人有權監督及參與清盤過程，包括委任清盤人。然而，債權人之間可能會出現爭議，而部分債權人可能希望清盤程序在法院批准下進行。最近在Re Samwell Spare Parts Limited (In Creditors’ Voluntary Liquidation) [2022] HKCFI 2851一案中，法院再次探討關於將自願清盤轉為強制清盤的法律原則。
案情
迅澤航空備件有限公司（「該公司」）因為一項局部仲裁裁決而結欠Airbus Helicopters China HK Limited（「呈請人」）一筆重大債務。該公司通過一項特別決議案，以債權人自願清盤方式將該公司清盤。於債權人會議舉行時，另一陣營佔債務總額超過50% 的關連債權人（「關連債權人」）委任了他們選擇的清盤人（「清盤人」）。