On March 27, 2020 both chambers of the German parliament passed emergency legislation to mitigate the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic encompassing, inter alia, a suspension of the obligation to file for insolvency, corresponding limitations of the management’s and lenders’ liability and introduction of a moratorium on certain contractual obligations.
Although the position is fast-moving and guidance is expected to be given in due course by the Law Society, it is presently understood that remote video conferencing technology such as Skype or Zoom could be used by a practising solicitor to administer a statutory declaration.
Today’s list of winding up petitions has been adjourned for a minimum of three months with petitions being re-listed for June, July and August. ICC Judge Mullen recited in his order that having considered the Protocol for Remote Hearings dated 20th March 2020 and the LCJ’s Review of Court Arrangements due to COVID-19 dated 23rd March 2020, he has concluded that the list “cannot presently be conducted remotely” and that “satisfactory arrangements to ensure safety cannot be put in place”.
Introduction
Section 239(5) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the “1986 Act”) limits the jurisdiction to reverse a preference to situations where “the company which gave the preference was influenced in deciding to give it by a desire to produce” the prohibited result. This involves a subjective enquiry which turns on the relevant actor’s state of mind.
On December 20, 2019, the honorable Marvin Isgur, judge of the Southern District of Texas Bankruptcy Court, issued an opinion holding that Alta Mesa Holdings (“Alta Mesa”), an upstream oil and gas producer with operations based in the STACK formation, could not, under Oklahoma law, reject certain gathering agreements in its bankruptcy case.1 The holding in Alta Mesa follows a similar outcome issued less than three months earlier in In re Badlands Energy, Inc.,2 a case decided by a Colorado bankruptcy court applying Utah law.
To secure an order for the #winding-up of a Quasi-Partnership company on the Just& Equitable ground, is it necessary only to show that mutual trust and confidence between the shareholders/quasi-partners has broken down? Hardwicke investigates the recent case of Badyal v Badyal & Ors [2019] EWCA Civ 1644
Background
2018 was seen by many as the ‘year of the CVA’ and the year of the so -called ‘Retail CVA’ in particular. Such CVAs have been used in an attempt by companies operating in the retail and casual dining sector with burdensome leases to reduce the cost of their premises whilst continuing to trade.
2019 was widely expected to be the year in which there was a challenge by a landlord under s.6 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (‘the Act’) to the use of CVAs to force a rent reduction, without comparable cuts to other creditors and so it has proved.
The recent case of Sell Your Car With Us Ltd v Anil Sareen will be of interest to practitioners in Corporate Insolvency as it provides a useful reminder that there is no strict rule that the winding up procedure is inapt for mere debt collection.
The Facts:
The creditor (“AS”) had engaged the debtor company (“SYC”) to sell his Maserati Levante sports car and on completion of the sale to deposit the proceeds in his bank account. Communications were agreed to be conducted by email.
On July 24, 2019, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) issued the Consultation Paper on the Proposed Framework for Variable Capital Companies Part 3 (the Consultation Paper), which covers the proposed subsidiary legislation relating to the insolvency and winding up of a v