Dissolving a Cyprus company can be a complicated or a straightforward process however it is a procedure that requires careful planning and execution. In Cyprus, this process is governed by the Companies Law, Cap 113, and involves various legal, financial, and administrative steps.
On Wednesday 19 June 2024, the Irish Corporate Enforcement Authority ("CEA") published its first-ever annual report. The Annual Report covers the 18-month period from July 2022 (when it replaced and assumed the responsibilities of the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement) to 31 December 2023.
Supervision of corporate insolvency
The CEA has a statutory role in supervising the liquidation of insolvent companies and taking enforcement actions in respect of struck off insolvent companies.
Die §§ 89 – 91 StaRUG: Eigenständiger Regelungsinhalt oder lediglich klarstellender Charakter? Wir klären auf!
Die EU-Richtlinie über Restrukturierung und Insolvenz (Restrukturierungsrichtlinie) enthält in Kapitel 4 (Art. 17, 18) besondere Vorschriften zur Insolvenzanfechtung. Diese hat der deutsche Gesetzgeber mit den §§ 89 – 91 StaRUG in nationales Recht umgesetzt. Daher lohnt sich ein vertiefter Blick auf diese Vorschriften.
Richtliniengeber möchte Finanzierungen und Zwischenfinanzierungen schützen
导言
股东出资加速到期，是与注册资本认缴制紧密关联、对股东的法定出资期限利益进行限制与收回的“反向”制度。本次公司法修订中，该制度被深度重塑。
一方面，该制度的相关规定不再分散于其他法律、司法解释、会议纪要等文件中，而是首次明确规定于《公司法》中。另一方面，也是更为重要的是，本次制度调整是在资本制度改革的大背景下完成的。本次公司法修订的一大亮点是资本制度的系统化改革和完善，在股东出资层面主要包括有限公司收紧为五年内限期认缴制、股份公司重回实缴制、增加股东未按期缴纳出资的催缴失权制度、新增非破产情形下股东出资加速到期制度、明确股权转让后转让人和受让人的责任等，其中任何一项制度的改变均与其他制度的变化息息相关。
本文的目的在于揭示新《公司法》资本制度系统性调整的背景下，规则之间的内在联系和互动关系，帮助读者更好地整体性理解股东出资加速到期相关新规。
一、“股东出资加速到期”的两类情形
股东出资加速到期是注册资本认缴制下，为保护公司及债权人利益而限制股东期限利益的特殊公司法制度，[1]具体指在特定情形下，出资期限未届满且未完全实缴的股东，丧失原有的出资期限利益，需要提前缴纳出资。
This compendium presents a curated collection of judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Securities Appellate Tribunal ("SAT") from 2019 to 2024. Established to hear and dispose of appeals against orders passed by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI), and the Pension Fund Regulatory and Development Authority (PFRDA), SAT plays a pivotal role in shaping the regulatory landscape of the financial and securities markets in India.
In this alert, we consider the implications from the recent High Court judgment finding two former directors of BHS liable for various heads of wrongdoing, including wrongful trading and "misfeasant trading".
What Directors need to know
With the mass of reports, reviews and consultations that have already occurred, there is no lack of critiques, complaints and proposed solutions. The risk is that these will (once again) be cherrypicked for fixes, rather than form the basis for a comprehensive review.
It has been 33 years since the "recession we had to have" in 1991. Fears that Australia would enter a technical recession during 2023 didn’t eventuate.
The Alita matter serves as a good illustration that if you intend to seek leave under section 444GA(1)(b) you should act swiftly and with regard to the potential regulatory risk.
The BRG Corporate Finance Key Economic Data Report reviews GDP and consumer confidence; inflation and real earnings; employment; housing; auto sales and production; retail sales; interest rates; high-yield index; bankruptcies; defaults; and commodity prices.
Read the reports from 2024:
The Court of Appeal has, in Foo Kian Beng v OP3 International Pte Ltd (in liquidation) [2024] SGCA 10 (OP3 International), comprehensively considered the contours of a director’s duty to consider the interest of creditors in certain circumstances (Creditor Duty). In this important decision, the apex court examined when the Creditor Duty first becomes engaged as well as the nature, scope and content of the duty.