Summary
Trustees and officeholders (such as administrators, receivers and liquidators) can ask the Court to approve steps that they propose to take in the administration of their estate (such as the sale of an asset or settlement of a claim).
In insolvency proceedings, it can be difficult to navigate how to close out a transaction with an insolvent counterparty without suffering excessive collateral damage. One question that may arise in this process is whether a contract with the insolvent party can be relied upon. Canadian insolvency laws provide special treatment for a certain category of contracts called eligible financial contracts (EFCs).
The High Court recently delivered a significant and precedent-setting decision in the matter of MAC-Interiors Limited [2023] IEHC 395 on the jurisdiction of the Irish courts to appoint an examiner to a foreign-registered company.
A precedent decision
The Irish High Court has determined that the liquidation of an Irish aircraft leasing company, which was a 100% subsidiary of a Russian company expressly subject to EU sanctions, rebuts the presumption that the company was controlled by the Russian parent for the purpose of EU sanctions.
This enables the liquidators to deal with the assets without costly and time-consuming derogation applications.
Background
This article is a part one of two series that explores the key issues we have recently seen and the case law arising in Misfeasance and Wrongful Trading claims.
Introduction
What is Wrongful Trading?
Against the backdrop of Hong Kong's emergence from the pandemic and the government's efforts to entice tourists and investors back, there arises a question as to whether the government might consider reviving the corporate rescue bill. Implementing a framework for debt restructuring and negotiations with creditors would help prevent liquidations, which often result in additional job losses and contribute to further economic decline.
Section 544(b)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code enables a trustee to step into the shoes of a creditor and avoid a transfer “of an interest of the debtor in property” that an unsecured creditor could avoid under applicable state law. See 11 U.S.C. § 544(b)(1). Thus, for example, if outside of bankruptcy a creditor could avoid a transaction entered by a debtor as a fraudulent transfer, in bankruptcy, the trustee acquires the power to avoid such a transaction.
What situations call for a Pre-Pack?
Imagine the following scenario: a debtor, in our case a company, is facing severe financial distress. The company, however, still has certain business units that are profitable. In this situation, it may be sensible for the company to sell only these profitable business units. This proactive approach, if implemented quickly, could preserve business value and jobs while minimising disruption to operations and employees.
The questions are: can a Swiss pre-pack achieve this and if so, how?
The High Court has considered the point at which the directors’ duty to consider the interests of creditors arose in the context of a tax mitigation scheme that ultimately failed
The judge found that the duty to consider creditors’ interests had arisen once the directors had become aware that there was a real risk that the scheme would fail and that the company would therefore be unable to pay its debts.
On 17 July 2023, the Hon’ble Supreme Court delivered its judgement in Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Raman Ispat Private Limited & Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 842 (Raman Ispat). The specific issue of whether Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. (Appellant) could enforce a security interest created over the assets of Raman Ispat Private Limited (Corporate Debtor) outside of the liquidation proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) was settled in the negative. More importantly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court confined the applicability of State Tax Officer v.