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.
In a recent case, the Victorian Supreme Court said that an accountant ‘would know well that a statutory demand involves strict time frames for response and potentially very significant consequences for a company’. The accountant failed to take appropriate steps to inform the company of the statutory demand.
The statutory demand process
If a company does not comply with a statutory demand within 21 days of service, it is deemed to be insolvent and the creditor may proceed to wind up the company.
A recent court decision considers the legal principles and sufficiency of evidence when a court-appointed receiver seeks approval of their remuneration.
A court-appointed receiver needs court approval for the payment of their remuneration. The receiver has the onus of establishing the reasonableness of the work performed and of the remuneration sought.
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.
A Supreme Court in Australia has dismissed an application by a UK company’s moratorium restructuring practitioners for recognition of a UK moratorium and ordered that the company be wound up under Australian law.
The decision provides insights into the interaction between cross-border insolvencies and the winding up in Australia of foreign companies under Australian law.
Introduction
In the matter of Hydrodec Group Plc [2021] NSWSC 755, delivered 24 June 2021, the New South Wales Supreme Court:
It is possible for a trustee in bankruptcy to make a claim to property held by a bankrupt on trust. For example, by lodging a caveat over a home that is held on trust.
A trustee in bankruptcy may be able to make a claim, relying on the bankrupt’s right of indemnity as trustee of the trust. This is because the bankrupt’s right of indemnity, as trustee, is itself property that vests in the trustee in bankruptcy under the Bankruptcy Act 1966.
Explaining a trustee’s right of indemnity
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