Background

If you have fraudulently obtained Covid-19 financial support, such as a Bounce Back Loan, you must be pretty worried by recent headlines that show company directors being disqualified, fined and jailed.

Elon Musk recently said he has a "super bad feeling" about the economy, pithily declaring what most financial commentators have been predicting in more technical terms.

Uncertain times have a knock-on effect on all aspects of life including business. The pandemic, Brexit, ever-rising inflation and now an energy crisis against the backdrop of war in Europe have made many businesses face financial difficulty.

Suppliers and customers alike are facing extraordinary pressures, and this can affect key supply contracts. This has meant the importance of insolvency law and practice in this area has risen considerably.

What happens if a customer becomes insolvent?

The deepening crisis of debtor honesty means that today, more than ever, creditors face the risk that debtors will not only fail to pay their debts voluntarily, but will hinder enforcement by transferring assets to third parties. In such situations, a fraudulent transfer claim against the third party (sometimes called a “Pauline action”), known and applied in legal systems of many countries around the world, comes to the creditor’s rescue.

Fraudulent transfer claim against a third party: how it works

We developed this checklist as a tool and guide to necessary and optional elements to negotiate and document the principal agreement or deal document in an international or cross-border Joint Venture (“JV”) between a U.S. party or parties and one or more non-U.S. parties.

Between the lines... For Private Circulation-Educational & Information purpose only Vaish Associates Advocates… Distinct. By Experience. I. Supreme Court: A liability in respect of a claim arising out of a recovery certificate under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 would be a "financial debt" under the IBC and a holder of such recovery certificate would be a "financial creditor" under the IBC. The Supreme Court (“SC”) has in its judgment dated May 30, 2022, in the matter of Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. A. Balakrishna and Another [Civil Appeal No.

We consider the implications for office-holder claimants of the recent case ofKelmanson v Gallagher & De Weyer [2022] EWHC 395 (Ch).

The case raises interesting points of practice for insolvency practitioners: a director consciously trying to evade or 'game' the statute won't work to prevent office holder recovery, but a sincerely held but mistaken belief on the director's part as to what was being done doing could.

KEY POINTS:

１ 「経済の着実な安定化のための一括的政策措置の発布に関する 通知」 

国務院は、2022年5月31日に「経済の着実な安定化のための一括 的政策措置の発布に関する通知」を発表し、財政政策、貨幣金融政 策、投資安定化政策、消費促進政策、産業及びサプライチェーン安 定化政策等の方面から計33項目の具体的措置を打ち出した。特に企 業に関連している項目として、以下の内容が挙げられると思われる。

① 従来の製造業や技術サービス業等に加えて、卸売・小売業等7 つの産業に所属する企業を、増値税控除留保税額の還付政策の 適用対象として組み入れる。

② 社会保険納付猶予政策の適用範囲を、従来の飲食、小売、観光、 民間航空、運輸の５業種以外に、自動車製造業、紡績業、製紙 及び紙製品業等の計17業種を追加し、これら産業に対する養老 保険料の支払猶予期限を22年末までに延長し、また新型コロナ 感染症の影響を著しく受けた地域にある⽣産経営が困難な状況 に陥っているすべての中小企業・零細企業に対して、養老、失 業、労災の3 項目の社会保険料の会社納付部分を段階的に納付 猶予し、猶予期限を22年末まで延長する。

Corporate Update is our fortnightly bulletin highlighting the latest legal and regulatory developments which we consider to be of relevance to in-house corporate counsel.