Supreme Administrative
Court Judgement of October 12, 2016
Case no. 0797/15
In this Judgment, the Supreme Administrative Court concluded that expenses related to employees, recorded as remuneration, salaries or wages, relevant to the limit of 15% foreseen for acceptance of the expenses with social benefits referred to in Article 43.2 of the CIT Code, are not limited to those that were subject to mandatory Social Security contributions.
South Central Administrative Court
Judgement of October 13, 2016
DOING BUSINESS IN PORTUGAL A legal and tax perspective This guide provides general information to investors intending to operate in Portugal on legal issues on which they may need advice. It is not intended, and cannot be considered, as a comprehensive and detailed analysis of Portuguese law or, under any circumstances, as legal advice from Cuatrecasas, Gonçalves Pereira. This guide was drafted on the basis of information available as of October, 2015. Cuatrecasas, Gonçalves Pereira is under no obligation and assumes no responsibility to update this information. All rights reserved.
Supreme Administrative
Court Judgement of October 12, 2016
Case no. 0797/15
In this Judgment, the Supreme Administrative Court concluded that expenses related to employees, recorded as remuneration, salaries or wages, relevant to the limit of 15% foreseen for acceptance of the expenses with social benefits referred to in Article 43.2 of the CIT Code, are not limited to those that were subject to mandatory Social Security contributions.
South Central Administrative Court
Judgement of October 13, 2016
Recent Developments
Europe, the U.S. and Canada—On 7 May 2013, the US Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware denied a motion by European creditors of Nortel Networks Corp. ("Nortel") to certify a direct appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit of the bankruptcy court's 3 April 2013 ruling (Inre Nortel Networks, Inc., Case No. 09-10138 (KG), 2013 BL 92666 (Bankr. D. Del. Apr.
This note discusses two recent decisions of the Court of Appeal of Singapore that dealt with the standard of review to be applied in winding up proceedings where a debtor asserts that there is a dispute which parties agreed to resolve by way of arbitration.
Winding up proceedings
It is quite often that we see contracts providing for disputes arising under the contract to be resolved by way of arbitration.
In But Ka Chon v Interactive Brokers LLC [2019] HKCA 873, the Hong Kong Court of Appeal upheld a lower court's decision to reject an application to set aside a statutory demand. The appellant had argued (among other things) that an arbitration clause in his agreement with the respondent required their dispute to be referred to arbitration.
Back in August, we wrote a blog about adjudication and liquidation, following the judgment in the TCC case of Michael J. Lonsdale (Electrical) Limited v Bresco Electrical Services Limited (in Liquidation) [2018] EWHC 2043 (TCC) (Lonsdale).
It is generally the case (though not always!) that courts are reluctant to enforce monetary award adjudication decisions in favour of companies in liquidation (CILs). This is because of the uncertainty surrounding the CIL’s ability to repay those sums should it later transpire it was not entitled to the award.
Introduction