In the twelfth edition of the Going concerns, we cover set-offs and the net result of a creditor dealing with a company in liquidation; the first cross-border pre-pack scheme filed in the Singapore International Commercial Court ("SICC") by a foreign unregistered company that has been successfully sanctioned in Singapore: Re No Va Land Investment Group Corporation [2024] SGHC(I) 17 ("No Va Land"); and UAE's new bankruptcy law that came into effect on 1 May 2024, a relatively substantial overhaul of the onshore insolvency and restructuring regime in the UAE.
In its recent opinion in Raymond James & Associates Inc. v. Jalbert (In re German Pellets Louisiana LLC), 23-30040, 2024 WL 339101 (5th Cir. Jan. 30, 2024), the Fifth Circuit held that a confirmed bankruptcy plan enjoined a party from asserting certain indemnification counterclaims against a plan trustee because the party did not file a proof of claim.
Background
En 2023, le nombre de défaillances d’entreprises est en hausse par rapport à l’année précédente. À cela s’ajoutent le rallongement des délais de paiement, l’inflation, des taux d’intérêt toujours élevés...À la lumière dececlimat monétaire et financier instable se profile la gestion du risque crédit.
Whether a solar system is a “fixture” sounds like a mundane legal issue – but it has significant implications for the residential solar industry and for the financing of residential solar systems. If a system is regarded as a “fixture” of the house to which it is attached, then the enforceability and priority of the finance company’s lien on the system will be subject to applicable real estate law.
In this eleventh edition of the Going concerns, we touch upon the clarity provided by the Singapore Court of Appeal in the recognition of foreign solvent liquidations in Singapore, a potential new tool against debtors defrauding creditors, and an update on the sanction of an administrative convenience class in the Singapore High Court.
We hope you enjoyed this edition of the Going concerns and we look forward to your continued support in the coming editions of the same. As usual, please feel free to contact us should you like to learn more on any topic.
Content
In a welcome clarification for administrators, the UK Supreme Court in the recent case of R (on the application of Palmer) v Northern Derbyshire Magistrates’ Court[1], held that an administrator appointed under the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) is not an “officer” of the company for the purposes of section 194(3) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (TULRCA).
Introduction
A recent Commercial Court decision has raised an intriguing question of private international law: can a foreign judgment be enforced in England and Wales if it is not enforceable in the country where it was given?
If your company is named in a new lawsuit or receives a EEOC charge, part of your review process should include checking to see if the filing complainant or plaintiff has a pending bankruptcy action. If so, the next step is to see if the claimant disclosed their lawsuit or administrative complaint in his or her bankruptcy petition. If not, you may have a successful estoppel argument.
In this client alert, we set out the key findings by the Court of Appeal in Darty Holdings SAS v Geoffrey Carton-Kelly [2023] EWCA Civ 1135, which considers an appeal against the High Court decision that a repayment by Comet Group plc (“Comet”) of £115 million of unsecured intra-group debt to Kesa International Ltd (“KIL”) was a preference under section 239 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the “Act”).
Background to the Case