Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: Upon an application for an administration order the court exercised its discretion and concluded that a winding up order was more appropriate. The court was satisfied that the Respondent company was insolvent but could not see why administration would fulfil one of the statutory purposes.
Re Aartee Steel Group Ltd [2023] EWHC 1701 (Ch)
What are the practical implications of this case?
In the realm of estate management and inheritance distribution in Saudi Arabia, an intricate web of legal nuances and Sharia law intricacies come into play, mainly when disputes among heirs arise. Dealing with this complex process requires a deep comprehension of the legal landscape and an astute understanding of the principles of Sharia law that govern inheritance matters within the country.
In earlier posts, the Red Zone has discussed the Supreme Court’s ruling in Siegel v. Fitzgerald, 142 S. Ct. 1770 (2022), which held that increased U.S. Trustee quarterly fees for large Chapter 11 debtors between 2018 and 2020 under the Bankruptcy Judgeship Act of 2017 (the “2017 Act”) were unconstitutional because of disparate treatment of Chapter 11 debtors in Bankruptcy Administrator (“BA”) districts, and subsequent judicial decisions determining the appropriate remedy for debtors who overpaid those fees.
In a scholarly, comprehensive and lengthy opinion written by one of the Southern District of New York’s most recently appointed Bankruptcy Judges, the issue of whether the reinstatement of defaulted and accelerated debt requires the payment of default-rate interest and fees was answered in the affirmative, undoubtedly to the delight of lenders everywhere.
On August 17, 2023, China Evergrande Group, one of China’s largest real estate developers, and its affiliates filed chapter 15 petitions in the US Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York in Manhattan seeking recognition of foreign restructuring proceedings in the High Court of Hong Kong and in the High Court of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court in the British Virgin Islands.
Deciding the parameters of directors' personal liability for actions, or omissions, when a company continues to trade while it is or near insolvent requires a balance to be struck between allowing directors latitude to try to rescue the company and protecting the company's creditors.
Le 20 juin 2019, le Parlement Européen a adopté une nouvelle directive qui harmonise pour la première fois le droit de l’insolvabilité au niveau européen.
L’attente fut longue avant que le processus de transposition en droit belge n’aboutisse enfin par l’adoption d’un projet de loi en mai 2023, et par la publication de la loi le 7 juin 2023.
La loi, dont le maître mot sera l’efficacité, entrera en vigueur le 1er septembre 2023.
While the economy continues to look positive on paper, the underlying issues stemming from recent inflation and ever increasing overheads continue to affect businesses. Against this backdrop and a year on from the commencement of the European Union (Preventive Restructuring) Regulations 2022 (SI 380/2022) (“the 2022 Regulations”) on 29 July 2022, it seems auspicious to remind directors of their duties to wind up a company in a timely manner or simply exercise good corporate governance and wind up companies that are no longer operational.
On June, 20 2019, the European Parliament adopted a new directive harmonising insolvency law at a European level for the first time.
It was a long wait before the process of transposition into Belgian law finally came to fruition with the adoption in May 2023, and the publication of the law on June, 7 2023.
The law, whose guiding principle is “efficiency”, will come into force on September, 1 2023.
In the blog post titled ‘Vidarbha Aftermath’, the decision of the Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court”) in Vidarbha Industries Power Limited v. Axis Bank Limited[1] (“Vidarbha”) was discussed and analysed.