In a recent case involving Savannah AG Research Pty Ltd (Savannah), the Federal Court of Australia considered an application for relief by Savannah’s majority shareholder under section 447A(1) or section 447C(2) Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) which alleged that the directors did not hold a genuine opinion Savannah was insolvent or likely to become insolvent and were motivated by an improper purpose.
Recently, the Supreme Court, in the case of Gaurav Agarwal vs CA Devang P. Sampat, has issued notice to the parties for adjudicating the crucial question of law pertaining to the ‘Period of Limitation’ for preferring an appeal under Section 61 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“theCode”).
The Dutch Supreme Court ruled that "setting aside" or replacing the board is not a requirement to qualify as a de facto director. De facto directors are not required to manage the company instead of, and to the exclusion of, the formal directors.
Background
Under Dutch law, as a matter of principle, only the company (ie a Dutch B.V. or N.V.) is liable for its debts. The directors of the company are in principle not liable.
This Quickguide explains the two most common forms to bring a solvent company's life to an end and explains the processes involved in each, as well as in which circumstance which option may be best suited.
Strike-off or members' voluntary liquidation?
When a company has fulfilled its economic purpose or a group of companies wishes to consolidate its structure, there are two main options available to bring a solvent company to an end:
There are a number of options and avenues that a company can explore when faced with business stress or distress. Depending on the circumstances, a combination of these could be appropriate to help mitigate or avoid a business failing.
This guide provides an overview of potential options and should be considered alongside specific advice from the company's advisors.
Informal Options
Even when informal options are being considered, directors should engage with their advisors and stakeholders to ensure that their decisions take into account their directors' duties.
This article originally appeared in Vol. 52 of Kentucky Trucker, a publication of the Kentucky Trucking Association.
On March 28, 2023, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (the “District Court”) rendered an opinion (the “Opinion”)1 affirming the confirmation order of Laurie S.
Introduction
The law is constantly developing to fit the ever-changing world. Most recently, with the digitalisation of the commercial landscape and the proliferation of cryptocurrencies, NFTs and metaverse-related businesses, the courts have had to apply or adapt the law to deal with novel situations. This was the case in Re Babel Holding Ltd and other matters [2023] SGHC 98, where the Singapore High Court had to apply restructuring and insolvency law in the context of a cryptocurrency-related business.
The extant regulatory framework for Asset Reconstruction Companies (“ARCs”) has been amended by the Reserve Bank of India (“RBI”), vide its notification titled ‘Review of Regulatory Framework for Asset Reconstruction Companies (ARCs)’ dated 11th October 2022 (“Framework”).
Key Changes:
Some of the key changes brought about by the Framework are as follows:
Introduction
In a recent article we considered the nature and extent of directors’ duties to take into account the interests of a company’s creditors when a company is in financial difficulty. A recent High Court decision (Mitchell & Krys v Al Jaber & ors [2023] EWHC 364 (Ch)) considered the issue of directors’ duties in the subsequent situation where a company has entered liquidation. Whilst the relevant company was based in the British Virgin Islands (BVI), the case includes analysis of the position in English law.