In StaRUG-Verfahren gehen oftmals Gesellschafterstreitigkeiten voraus oder entstehen im Laufe der Sanierung.
The voidable transaction regime under Part 5.7B of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the Act) provides a framework for liquidators to pursue recovery action against parties who have received property or some form of benefit from an insolvent company. In turn, the mechanisms and processes under the regime often provide uncertainty in commercial dealings and other transactions of a company and provides a further layer of anxiety when navigating through cashflow problems.
In the recent decision of the Anjani Kumar Prashar (Suspended Director of Grandstar Realty Pvt. Limited) v. Manab Dutta1, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”) has held that the auction purchaser would also be a financial creditor vis‐à‐vis the creditors of the entity whose assets were purchased by the auction purchaser.
In the recent decision of Ashok Dattatray Atre & Ors. v. State Bank of India & Ors.1 National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”) has reiterated that the extension of payment timelines under a resolution plan does not constitute a modification thereof, and the National Company Law Tribunal has the power to grant such extension even without the express concurrence of the committee of creditors (“CoC”).
Brief Facts
This article will survey the structural, strategic, and tactical ways by which a major corporate defendant may successfully manage its way through the particularly American corporate challenge of being targeted by the plaintiffs' bar in mass tort filings. I have spent most of my professional career trying to answer this question. Over the last 22 years, my company, KCIC, has focused on providing services to corporations in managing mass-tort liabilities and maximizing their related insurance assets.
In the recent decision in Blockchain Group Company Limited (in liquidation) v. PKF Hong Kong Limited1, Le Pichon DHCJ decided that despite an error resulting in a protective writ naming the defendant as a limited company and formerly a firm, the relevant provisions to amend a party’s name could not be used to essentially replace the limited company with the firm.
KENYA
Economic overview
In Foo Kian Beng v OP3 International Pte Ltd (in liquidation) [2024] SGCA 10 (OP3 International)1 the Singapore Court of Appeal considered the trigger for when the director's duty to consider the interests of creditors is engaged (referred to in the judgment as the Creditor Duty).
The Court held that:
April, 2024 For Private Circulation - Educational & Informational Purpose Only A BRIEFING ON LEGAL MATTERS OF CURRENT INTEREST KEY HIGHLIGHTS * Bombay High Court: NCLT has jurisdiction to direct Directorate of Enforcement to release attached properties of a corporate debtor. ⁎ Delhi High Court: Designation of seat of arbitration is similar to an exclusive jurisdiction clause. ⁎ Bombay High Court: Orders issued by banks and financial institutions while declaring a wilful defaulter must be reasoned orders.
We have published a series of articles dealing with directors’ duties in the zone of insolvency.