The enforcement of court orders that are designed to preserve, trace or track crypto-assets within North America is often limited in practice. As seen in the recent Ontario decision of Cicada 137 LLC v. Medjedovic (“Cicada”),[1] mechanisms by which legal enforcement principles can be effectively applied against stolen or misappropriated crypto-assets are constrained.
In the recent case of Re JD Group Ltd in liquidation; Bhatia v Purkiss (as liquidator of JD Group Ltd) a company director appealed a decision that he was liable for VAT fraud.
Background
Mr Bhatia was the sole director of a company trading in mobile phones. He was sent a HMRC notice explaining the risks of mobile phone trading and liability for involvement in VAT fraud.
Once perceived as a relatively moribund restructuring market, where stressed and distressed borrowers and lenders ended up stuck in interminable refinancing cycles faced with court proceedings that, at least in perception, prioritized local creditor interests, today’s landscape could not be more different.
引言
企业国有资产无偿划转，是指企业国有资产在政府机构、事业单位及特定国有企业之间的无偿转移，其作为一种特殊的产权转移方式，具有程序简单、高效便捷、无偿等优势，是国有企业进行资产重组调整的重要方式之一。我国目前已经逐步建立起相对完善的无偿划转制度体系，但无偿划转实务中仍有不少问题尚待明确。厘清国有资产无偿划转过程中的疑难问题，对于正确适用无偿划转制度及促进国有资产保值增值皆有重要意义。
一、企业国有资产无偿划转的制度体系及适用
（一）企业国有资产无偿划转的制度体系概述
自2003年国务院国有资产监督管理委员会（以下简称“国务院国资委”）成立后，我国的国有资产无偿划转制度逐步完善，并形成了现有涵盖有限责任公司、非上市股份有限公司、上市公司的无偿划转制度体系，所涉及的主要规则如下：
In the latest decision of the Hong Kong court to consider the interplay between arbitration clauses and winding-up or bankruptcy petitions, on 22 May 2023, the Hon. Linda Chan J (the Judge) made a winding-up order against Simplicity & Vogue Retailing (HK) Co. Limited (the Company) and rejected the Company’s argument that the dispute over the underlying debt should be referred to arbitration.
Written by Côme de Girval, Capstan Avocats
If an employer finds itself in financial difficulties that involve liquidation or restructuring, employee entitlements could be at risk. Compulsory insurance schemes in some jurisdictions can provide employees with important guarantees.
The law regarding moratoriums imposed under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code[1] (hereinafter referred to as the IBC 2016) has been often explained and clarified by various judicial pronouncements, which aptly interpret the multitudes contained in Section 14 of the IBC.
Over recent years, a prolonged period of low interest rates, together with a competitive financing market, has resulted in greater leverage and control for private companies (and their sponsors) when it comes to negotiating terms with current and potential creditors. There has also been, as a consequence of this dynamic and the general availability of capital, an expansion in debt document flexibility over the course of the last decade.
In a recent judgment passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), in the case of Somesh Choudhary v Knight Riders Sports Private Limited & Anr1, it was held that claims arising out of Intellectual Property Rights would come within the ambit of Section 5 (21) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016
Close economic ties and interdependence between the US and Canada have been bolstered by free trade policies and intensified global competition, paving the way for continued opportunities for US businesses to tap into the Canadian market. These opportunities have resulted in an active cross-border lending market. In light of this, US lenders who are lending into Canada may encounter, and should be aware of, Canadian-specific legal issues and considerations.