The High Court of Bombay (“Court”) in a recent judgment[1] has upheld the NCLT’s powers to direct the Directorate of Enforcement (“ED”) to release attached properties of a corporate debtor, once a resolution plan in respect of the corporate debtor had been approved.
Following our previous alert, in which we highlighted an issue with entries relating to registered security maintained at Companies House being incorrectly updated to indicate that they had in fact been discharged without the aware
The Court of Appeal has handed down judgment in the case of Humphrey v Bennett, providing some useful guidance on the nature and scope of a director’s duty to avoid conflicts of interest. The case was an appeal against summary judgment of the High Court following a derivative claim brought on behalf of a company by minority shareholders. The case will be of particular interest to directors of smaller companies whose management structures very often operate on a more informal footing.
Die strategische Planung der Maßnahmen ist zentral für das Gelingen arbeitsrechtlicher Umstrukturierungen. Die wichtigsten To-dos erfahren Sie im heutigen Beitrag.
When Part 26A of the Companies Act was introduced in 2020, the Government deliberately modelled the legislation on Part 26, with the view that the new regime (and the advisers and judges seeking to navigate it) would benefit from piggy-backing on over a century’s worth of case law relating to schemes of arrangement.
Dieser erste Beitrag der Blogserie StaRUG gibt einen Überblick über die Chancen und Schwierigkeiten bei der Anwendung des StaRUG in der Praxis.
To modernise the restructuring toolkit available to special administrators, the UK government has introduced changes to the English special administration regime (SAR)1 for distressed water companies. The changes follow reports of significant stress in the water services sector.
New Changes
Background
The collapse of Carillion in 2018 was arguably the UK's largest corporate insolvency in years, creating a lasting impact through job losses and the derailment of hundreds of public sector projects.
We are happy to present the tenth issue of our e-magazine – Trilegal Quarterly Roundup.
This issue features:
• Intellectual Property Diligences from an Insolvency Lens
• A Roadmap for 100% Biomass-based Energy Solutions
引言：2023年8月17日，某中资地产集团依据《美国法典（United States Code）》第11编第15章向纽约南区破产法院（United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York）申请启动破产保护程序。破产保护程序作为一种辅助程序，并非在美国司法辖区内进行的完整破产程序，而是债务人向美国法院申请承认外国程序的工具。本文拟从某中资地产集团危机事件展开，分篇探究企业动用美国法下跨境承认工具的潜在动因，亦就债务人、债权人在中资离岸房企跨境破产重组中的关注问题加以浅析。
一、 事实背景
2023年8月17日，某注册于开曼群岛的中资地产集团（下称“中资集团”）依据《美国法典》第11编第15章1向纽约南区破产法院申请启动对集团及其注册于香港、英属维尔京群岛的两家子公司的破产保护程序。申请由集团公司秘书、子公司独立董事各自以“外国授权代表”（Foreign Representative）身份提出，请求纽约南区破产法院认可该等实体在美国境外提起的债务重组程序。公开信息检索及法院文件显示，中资集团提交的破产保护申请仅涉及地产集团及该两家海外子公司，而不涉及地产集团旗下的其它公司（包括其中国大陆子公司）。