Successor liability is a catchall term for a group of legal theories that, in certain circumstances, allow a creditor to recover amounts owed by its obligor from a person or entity who succeeds to the assets or business of that obligor. Typically, claimants cannot pursue successor liability against a purchaser in a bankruptcy sale because most sales are made "free and clear" of such claims under Section 363(f) of the Bankruptcy Code. However, there are some limited exceptions to this general rule.

A winding up petition is a legal document that can be served by a company’s creditors when they are owed money by the company. If the debt amounts to £750 or more, then a creditor has the right to go to court and ask for a winding up petition to be issued, although courts view this remedy as something that should be reserved for when a company is genuinely believed to be insolvent, and not simply used as a means of debt collection.

Assume that you have a company which has ceased trading and is left with a cash balance. You could extract most of the cash by paying a dividend, but that would be inefficient for tax purposes (resulting in tax rates of up to 39.35%). So, instead, you decide to wind the company up and receive the proceeds as a capital distribution, taking advantage of the lower capital gains tax rates (generally at 10% or 20% depending on the circumstances). Surely that is legitimate?

The case ofLiberty Commodities Ltd v Citibank NA London & Ors [2023] EWHC 2020 (Ch) provides a helpful reminder of the principles that the court will adopt when dealing with a winding up petition – particularly where there are supporting creditors.

Commercial insolvencies are expected to steadily increase in the near-term due to higher interest rates, supply chain disruption and corresponding increased commodity costs. A rise in commercial insolvencies will increase the likelihood that businesses will be impacted by a formal insolvency proceeding, whether as a creditor, supplier, customer or other stakeholder. It is, therefore, important for businesses to understand how to strategize in the context of both newly initiated and ongoing insolvency proceedings.

The Western Australia Court of Appeal has provided clarity concerning insolvency practitioner independence following pre-administration services and whether those pre-administration services can disentitle insolvency practitioners to remuneration.

Commercial insolvencies are expected to steadily increase in the near-term due to higher interest rates, supply chain disruption and corresponding increased commodity costs. A rise in commercial insolvencies will increase the likelihood that businesses will be impacted by a formal insolvency proceeding, whether as a creditor, supplier, customer or other stakeholder. It is, therefore, important for businesses to understand how to strategize in the context of both newly initiated and ongoing insolvency proceedings.

Introduction

Restructuring and insolvency proceedings often span different jurisdictions, requiring the cooperation of the respective countries' insolvency regimes. In its role as an international hub for restructuring and insolvency, Singapore has in place a framework for the effective management of cross-border insolvency proceedings. This takes the form of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency, which has been enacted in Singapore in an adapted form ("SG Model Law").

A bankruptcy court has jurisdiction to dismiss a legal malpractice claim of non-debtor plaintiffs against non-debtor attorneys.

That’s the ruling in Murray v. Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP (In re Murray Energy Holdings Co.), Adv. Pro. No. 22-2007, Southern Ohio Bankruptcy Court (decided October 5, 2023, Doc. 89)—appeal is pending.

Summary of Issue and Ruling

1. 始めに

JV（ジョイントベンチャー）は、自社の持たないノウハウ・経営資源等を JV パートナー間が JV を通じて相互に提供することで新たな価値を創出すると共に、リスクを適切に分担することに存在意義の  1   つがある。しかしながら、①一旦、JV パートナー間の関係が悪化すると、デッドロックや契約違反が生じ、円滑なビジネス運営に支障をきたし、また、②JV（対象会社）の財務状況が悪化すると、当該損失の処理を巡っ  て、JV パートナー間で軋轢が発生することがある。

そこで、本稿では、そのような JV の処理を巡る問題を概観することとする。

2. 契約上の攻防

まず、JV パートナー間の関係が悪化した場合に備えて、通常は JV 契約において、①JV 関係の解消方法に関する条項、及び②紛争解決手段に関する条項が記載されていることが多いため、当該条項に従って処理を  行うことが想定される 。