When a company is in financial distress, directors face difficult choices. Should they trade on to try to “trade out” of the company’s financial difficulties or should they file for insolvency? If they act too soon, will creditors complain that they should have done more to save the business? A recent English High Court case raises the prospect of directors potentially being held to account for decisions that “merely postpone the inevitable.”
Nachfolgend wird die Einordnung der Umsatzsteuer in der Insolvenz als Masse- oder Insolvenzforderung und die Auswirkung auf die Gläubigerbefriedigung erläutert.
They say every man needs protection, they say that every man must fall.1
Insbesondere in Restrukturierungsfällen kann es erforderlich sein, einzelne Konzerngesellschaften abzuwickeln. Hierbei sind einige Besonderheiten zu beachten.
Der Insolvenzverwalter ist vielen steuerrechtlichen Verpflichtungen ausgesetzt, deren Vernachlässigung erhebliche Sanktionen auslösen können.
A Hong Kong court has refused to sanction a scheme of arrangement, saying that practitioners should explain the key terms and effect of any proposed restructuring in a way which can be easily understood by the creditors and the court.
In Re Sino Oiland Gas Holdings Ltd [2024] HKCFI 1135, the Honourable Madam Justice Linda Chan refused to sanction a scheme of arrangement, saying that creditors had been given insufficient information about the restructuring and the scheme that would enable them to make an informed decision at the scheme meeting.
The Hong Kong Court of Appeal has finally laid to rest the vexed issue of whether an arbitration agreement or a winding-up petition should take precedence in an insolvency situation. In two parallel decisions, the Court of Appeal ruled that an arbitration agreement should be treated in the same way as an exclusive jurisdiction clause and that the principle should be given a wide interpretation.
Summary
In the first appeal of a restructuring plan under Part 26A Companies Act 2006, the English Court of Appeal unanimously set aside the first instance decision sanctioning the plan proposed by AGPS BondCo PLC, part of the Adler real estate group1.
The Hong Kong High Court has given a rare order for modifications to a scheme of arrangement after it had been implemented incorrectly by the scheme administrators. Drawing on instances in which the English courts have sanctioned modifications after approval by scheme creditors, the court held that the same principles apply here.
A Hong Kong court has rejected a bid to force liquidators to provide information and documents regarding their plans and strategies on related litigation as well as information on legal costs and funding arrangements.