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.
Overview
- The UK Supreme Court issued a recent decision in R (on the application of Palmer) v Northern Derbyshire Magistrates Court and Another [2023] UKSC 38.
- Crucially, the Court determined that an administrator is not an officer of the company within the meaning of the phrase 'any director, manager, secretary or similar officer of the body corporate', for the purpose of section 194(3).
Contents
R (on the application of Palmer) v Northern Derbyshire Magistrates Court and Another [2023] UKSC 38
Singapore’s highest court has definitively held that foreign insolvency, restructuring or liquidation proceedings concerning solvent companies should be recognised in Singapore (Re Ascentra Holdings, Inc (in official liquidation) v SPGK Pte Ltd [2023] SGCA 32), overturning a first instance decision taking the contrary view.
Background
In R (on the application of Palmer) (Appellant) v. Northern Derbyshire Magistrates Court and another (Respondents), the Supreme Court held that an administrator appointed under the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) is not an "officer" of the insolvent company under section 194(3) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (TULRCA).
Introduction
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 。