This week’s TGIF considers a recent decision of the Federal Court of Australia in which the Court relieved administrators of liability for entering a funding agreement with a major creditor in order to keep the company trading.
Key takeaways
Under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) and under the Companies Act, 2013 (Act), an order of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) can be appealed before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT). The time-period for filing such an appeal is maximum of 45 days under the Code and 90 days under the Act.
Under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code), if a corporate debtor is unable to pay its debts, then insolvency resolution proceedings (CIRP) may be initiated against the corporate debtor and attempts are made to revive the corporate debtor by inviting resolution plans. If the revival process fails, the corporate debtor must be liquidated.
This week’s TGIF considers the decision in Enares Pty Limited v Nimble Money Limited [2022] FCAFC 126, in which the Full Court considered shareholder information rights in the context of a dispute between Nimble’s board and its largest shareholder as to how to refinance Nimble’s debt.
Key takeaways
This week’s TGIF considers In the matter of Nicolas Criniti Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) [2022] NSWSC 1149 which examined the intersection between the winding up provisions in the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW).
Key takeaways
This week’s TGIF considers Hill, in the matter of Ovato Limited (Administrators Appointed) [2022] FCA 903 in which the Federal Court approved the administrators’ proposal for the Ovato Group to continue trading in order to maximise the chances of a sale as a going concern. The proposal was dependent on ongoing funding from the Ovato Group’s financier and, in that context, the administrators were able to agree to have their personal liability limited to the assets subject to the financier’s security.
Key takeaways
2016年インド破産倒産法の下、事業債権者と金融債権者の取り扱いに差が生じていることについては、発足当初から重要な懸念点として取り上げられてきました。金融債権者は、企業債務者と純粋に金銭的な取り決めを行っている者であるのに対して、事業債権者は、企業債務者が供給した商品又は提供したサービスの対価として金銭的債権を有する者とされます。インドの破産倒産法関連で近年争われた事例に、企業債務者の破産手続を開始するための最低基準額である1,000万ルピーの債務不履行金額を満たすか否かの判断において、「利息」を「主たる事業債務」に含めることができるか？というものがあります。
会社法審判所(NCLT)では様々な異なる見解が示されていましたが、会社法上訴審判所(NCLAT)は、Mr. Prashant Agarwal v. Vikash Parasrampuria (Prashant Agarwal Judgment)において、最低基準額1,000 万ルピーの計算の際、利息分を含めることできるかという問題について、明確にしました。
Brief Facts – 概要
This week’s TGIF considers Manda Capital Holdings Pty Ltd v PEC Portfolio Springvale Pty Ltd [2022] VSC 381, a recent Victorian Supreme Court decision that focused on the effect of COVID-19 on the property market, through the lens of a mortgagee’s duties under section 420A of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).
Key takeaways
Introduction
This week’s TGIF examines a recent NSW Supreme Court decision that illustrates the circumstances in which a person will be regarded as a ‘de facto director’ and the duties owed to creditors when facing insolvency.
Key takeaways