Alexander Vogel and Marc Baumberger, MLL Legal

This is an extract from the 2024 edition of GRR's Europe, Middle East and Africa Restructuring Review. The whole publication is available here.

La Dirección General de Seguridad Jurídica y Fe Pública ha resuelto, en Resolución de 19 de febrero de 2024, que una sociedad concursada, en fase de liquidación, no puede nombrar un administrador único. La DGSJyFP excluye, implícitamente, que subsista cualquier rango de funciones representativas que no se vea afectada por el concurso, a pesar de lo generalmente defendido por la doctrina.

Referencias Jurídicas CMS

Abril 2024

Posts Jurídicos

Corporate / M&A

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 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

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 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:

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