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.
Wirecard's insolvency administrator has won a first victory before the Munich I Regional Court. On 5 May, the court declared the annual financial statements for 2017 and 2018, which show balance sheet profits totalling around EUR 600 million, null and void. Dividends of around EUR 47 million were distributed to Wirecard's shareholders from these profits, which probably never existed. As a consequence of the nullity of the annual accounts, the resolutions on the utilisation of the balance sheet profits are also null and void.
Die anhaltenden Auswirkungen der Covid-19-Pandemie auf die Hotelbranche und eine mögliche Restrukturierungsoption
Über zwei Jahre nach Ausbruch der Covid-19-Pandemie sind deren Auswirkungen auf die deutsche Wirtschaft immer noch deutlich spürbar. Insbesondere die Hotelbranche ist von der sogenannten 4. Welle, den derzeitigen Rekordinzidenzen sowie den damit verbundenen staatlich angeordneten Einschränkungen wie 2G (Plus)- bzw. 3G-Regelungen weiterhin stark betroffen.
Das Gesetzgebungsverfahren zum Gesetz zur Fortentwicklung des Sanierungs- und Insolvenzrechts („SanInsFoG“) schreitet in beachtlicher Geschwindigkeit voran. Seit 14. Oktober 2020 liegt der Regierungsentwurf („RegE“) vor. Das Gesetz beinhaltet neben der Einführung des Unternehmensstabilisierungs- und Restrukturierungsgesetzes („StaRUG“) auch einige Änderungen in der Insolvenzordnung. Trotz der teilweise massiven Verschärfung der Geschäftsleiterpflichten durch das SanInsFoG, sieht der RegE auch eine Erleichterung gegenüber der aktuellen Rechtslage vor.
Teilweise Erleichterung für Geschäftsleiter – Haftungsgefahren für Zahlungen bei Insolvenzreife gegenüber der aktuellen BGH-Rechtsprechung vermindert
The Supreme Court in Sevilleja v Marex Financial Ltd [2020] UKSC 31 has brought much needed clarity to the legal basis and scope of the so-called ‘reflective loss’ principle. The effect of the decision is a ‘bright line’ rule that bars claims by shareholders for loss in value of their shares arising as a consequence of the company having suffered loss, in respect of which the company has a cause of action against the same wrong-doer.
A recent decision of the High Court of New Zealand provides helpful guidance for insolvency practitioners on how aspects of the voluntary administration regime should operate in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.
On 30 March 2020, the board of directors of EncoreFX (NZ) Limited resolved to appoint administrators to the company. By then, New Zealand was already at Level 4 on the four-level alert system for COVID-19.
The UK Court of Appeal has held that legal privilege outlasts the dissolution of a company in Addlesee v Dentons Europe LLP [2019] EWCA Civ 1600.
Legal advice privilege applies to communications between a client and its lawyers. The general rule is that those communications cannot be disclosed to third parties unless and until the client waives the privilege.
In Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy v PAG Asset Preservation Ltd [2019] EWHC 2890 the Secretary presented petitions under s 124A of the Insolvency Act 1986 to wind up two companies on public interest grounds. These companies were PAG Asset Preservation Limited and MB Vacant Property Solutions Limited (the Companies).