Strike off is the procedure of removing a company from the Register of Companies (the Register) following which the company will cease to exist.
Under the Companies (Guernsey) Law, 2008 (the Companies Law), a company may be struck off in one of three situations:
- if the company is defunct;
- if the company is defaulting; or
- if the company itself applies to be voluntarily struck off.
Strike off by the Registrar of Companies
The Registrar of Companies (the Registrar) has the power pursuant to the Companies (Guernsey) Law, 2008 (the Companies Law) to strike off companies which are either defunct or defaulting.
Chief Judge Leonard P. Stark of the District Court for the District of Delaware reversed and remanded the decision of the Bankruptcy Court which approved a Bankruptcy Rule 9019 settlement that Judge Stark concluded had been inadequately noticed under the circumstances.
Chief Judge Cecelia G. Morris of the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York decided that banks may not place an administrative freeze, even a temporary one, on the bank account of an individual who files for bankruptcy.
* This article was first published by INSOL International on April 17, 2015.
The bankruptcy case of Energy Future Holdings (EFH) and its affiliates has already provided the Delaware bankruptcy court occasion to tackle a number of important bankruptcy questions, including the propriety of using tender offers to settle noteholder claims during the pendency of the case.
A recent Delaware District Court decision concerning an appeal of a bankruptcy settlement clearly provides support for the use of tender offers or other exchange, or settlement mechanics permitted under applicable federal securities laws prior to and outside a plan of reorganization. In essence, this decision permits debtors to utilize exchange offers to repurchase outstanding securities at a discount, or obtain more favorable terms during a bankruptcy proceeding and prior to confirmation of a plan of reorganization.
Case Summary
The Second Circuit in Krys v. Farnum Place (In re Fairfield Sentry Ltd.)1 denied a petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc by Appellee Farnum Place, LLC (Farnum), a hedge fund that sought to protect its purchase of a $230 million claim against the bankruptcy estate of Bernard L.
* This article was first published by INSOL International on March 16, 2015.
Upholds Extraterritorial Application of 11 U.S.C. § 362 Automatic Stay
The Supreme Court of the United States declined[1] to review the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Jaffé v.