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.
En Colombia nos gusta todo a cero riesgo. En consecuencia, tradicionalmente, la escasa cultura de compraventa de negocios y empresas ha estado limitada a la parte magra del sector empresarial, donde todas las empresas son negocios en marcha (establecidos o empezando) y en donde los compradores se sienten cómodos persiguiendo activos (incluyendo compañías) cuya productividad está probada.
1. El Contexto Nacional
As the venture capital sector slows down, valuations and deal sizes are pulling back from the recent record highs. Seemingly, “investor friendly” deal terms are once again making an appearance in term sheets.
Introduction
In the recent judgment of In the Matter of Margara Shipping Limited (the “Margara Decision”)1 the Cayman Islands Grand Court provided some useful guidance on the basis on which a company can be restored to the Register of Companies (the “Register”) and subsequently wound up pursuant to section 159 of the Companies Act (2021 Revision) (the “Companies Act”) and the Grand Court Rules (2022 Consolidation) (“GCR”), Order 102, Rule 18.
The Legal Basis to Restore and Wind Up A Company
Insights
In its judgement delivered on 25 February 2021, in the names “Dr. Antoine Naudi as special attorney on behalf of the foreign company UR s.r.l vs. Talocan Ltd of Malta”, the Civil Court (Commercial Section), presided over by Hon. Justice Joseph Zammit McKeon, analysed the requirements necessary to uphold a dissolution and consequential winding up request in terms of Article 214 (2) (a) (ii) of the Companies Act, Chapter 386 of the Laws of Malta.
Facts of the Case
Case Background
14th June, 2022 -The Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”) handed down a judgment inShandong Chenming Paper Holdings Limited v Arjowiggins HKK 2 Limited [2022] HKCFA 11 (“CFA Decision”) yesterday, ruling on the nature of benefits conferred by a winding up order required to wind up a foreign incorporated company.
Can a winding-up petition be presented when a company is being wounded up voluntarily?