Case: Armaco Infralinks Pvt. Ltd. Versus B. S. Ispat Pvt. Ltd.
Facts of the Case
Armaco Infralinks Pvt. Ltd. (Operational Creditor) advanced ₹17,53,00,000 to B. S. Ispat Pvt. Ltd. (Corporate Debtor) between April 2021 and September 14, 2022, for the supply of coal. However, the Corporate Debtor supplied coal worth only ₹8,45,34,053, leaving an outstanding amount of ₹9,07,65,947.
On the heels of financial distress, Consolidated Burger Holdings LLC, along with two affiliates, has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. This Burger King franchisee operates 57 restaurant locations across Florida and Georgia, including standalone stores and Walmart-based outlets. At its peak, the company managed 75 locations with 1,500 employees. Today, it employs 773 individuals, including 697 hourly and 76 salaried workers, with most positions at the restaurant level.
On 8 April 2025, Mr Justice Marcus Smith delivered judgment granting Petrofac Limited and Petrofac International (UAE) LLC (the Plan Companies) permission to convene creditor meetings in respect of two inter-conditional restructuring Plans (the Plans). The fulsome judgment, following hearings on 28 February and 20 March, contains a number of interesting points:
在某些情况下，开曼公司的官方清算人可能能够采取行动追回公司破产前转移的资产。对于那些关注濒临破产的开曼公司事务的人来说，了解开曼群岛官方清算人和大法院所拥有的法定权力至关重要。
可撤销的优先权
《公司法（修订版）》（「该法」）规定，「在公司无法偿还第93 条所指的债务时，公司为了使该债权人优先于其他债权人而对任何债权人作出、招致、承担或遭受的任何财产转让或转移，或对财产的抵押，以及每项付款义务和司法程序，如果是在清算开始前六个月内作出、招致、承担或遭受的，经公司清算人申请，均可撤销。」
值得注意的是，如果在清算开始前六 (6) 个月内发生、产生、取得或遭受付款，则向开曼公司「关联方」支付的款项应被视为是为了给予债权人优先权而支付，因此，根据公司清算人的申请，该款项可予撤销。
如果债权人有能力控制开曼公司或在公司财务和经营决策方面施加重大影响，则该债权人应被视为「关联方」。
公司在什么情况下无法偿还债务？
若发生下列情况，开曼公司将被视为无力偿还债务：
(a) 未遵守法定要求；
This week’s TGIF considers a recent decision of the High Court of Australia, in which a 4:3 majority held that a former trustee is not owed any fiduciary obligation by a successor trustee.
Key takeaways
Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine has caused significant changes in all areas of Ukrainian life, and litigation is no exception. Some legal provisions that had previously been fully operational lost their relevance with the onset of martial law, and vice versa – a significant number of issues began to require regulation by the state. The bankruptcy sector in Ukraine has also been affected by this issue, and the legislator has faced a number of issues that have arisen and need to be resolved within the framework of bankruptcy proceedings.
The appointment of an independent director is a powerful tool for private credit lenders. The appointment is designed to introduce a voice of neutrality and fairness into the board’s decision-making process with the hope and expectation that independence from the controlling shareholder enables the board to drive toward viable value-maximizing strategies. Often times, the independent director is vested with exclusive authority (or veto rights) over a range of significant corporate decisions, including a sale, restructuring and the decision to file a bankruptcy case.
The Court of Appeal of England and Wales (“EWCA”) recently handed down its decision in Servis-Terminal LLC v Valeriy Ernestovich Drelle [2025] EWCA Civ 62 clarifying that, as a matter of English law, an “unrecognised” foreign judgment cannot be relied upon as a basis to commence insolvency proceedings.
The Supreme Court has confirmed that s.423 of the Insolvency Act 1986, which provides for the avoidance of certain transactions where they have been entered into for the purpose of defrauding creditors, has a broad application and covers not only transactions entered into by the debtor personally, but also those entered into via the debtor's company: El-Husseiny and another v Invest Bank PSC [2025] UKSC 4.
On 26 February 2025, Deputy Master Scher handed down judgment in the case Suman Bhatia v Christopher Purkiss, as liquidator of JD Group Limited [2025] EWHC 359 (Ch). Wedlake Bell LLP (partner Edward Saunders), and Nora Wannagat (Tanfield Chambers) acted for the successful liquidator.
A copy of the judgment is available here.
Background