The recent revelations about the Atherton Scheme, as reported by The Times, have left many in the legal and business communities surprised. Despite significant government efforts to clamp down on insolvency avoidance practices, this contentious scheme continues to operate, raising serious concerns about its impact on creditors and the integrity of the insolvency regime.

What is the Atherton Scheme?

The decision handed down in Re A Company [2024] EWHC 2656 (Ch) has provided new insight on what constitutes "genuine and serious" cross-claim for the purposes of securing an injunction to restrain presentation of a winding up petition.

Background

Situations Partner Kai Zeng in London Kai Zeng, who advises on cross-border restructurings and special situations matters, has joined the firm in London as a partner in the Restructuring Department and Finance and Hybrid Capital & Special Situations groups.

Kai advises sponsors, debtors, creditors and strategic investors on restructurings of stressed and distressed businesses, as well as hedge and credit funds, investments banks and private equity firms on their review and diligence of European investment opportunities in par, stressed and distressed transactions.

This article explains why the purchase of a shell company should be avoided today and even more so in the future under the new law, and that the formation of a new company is preferable when setting up a business (start-up).

At the end of this article, the possible effects of the revision of the law on legitimate transactions with company shares will also be discussed.

Seeking sound legal advice is therefore worthwhile both when founding a new company and when taking over an operating company.

The voluntary dissolution of a Malta company is a significant legal process that should not be underestimated. It requires a thorough thought process, previous year compliance obligations to be met, and strict adherence to legal obligations. Failure to do so will result in serious consequences for the directors, shareholders and liquidator alike, especially if the liquidator is not vigilant in the manner in which the liquidator's role and responsibilities are carried out.

Federal Decree-Law No. 51/2023 Promulgating the Financial Reorganisation and Bankruptcy Law (the Bankruptcy Law) introduced a new bankruptcy regime in the UAE, but left a number of key issues to be addressed under later implementing regulations. These regulations have now been issued under Cabinet Decision No. 94/2024 on the Implementing Regulation of the Financial Restructuring and Bankruptcy Law (the Implementing Regulations).

1 r October, 2024（No. 26） ムシス バシリ / 金子 涼一 / パップワース チャールズ / 田村 允 1. 欧州委員会、排除型市場支配的地位の濫用に関するガイドライン案を 公表 本ガイドライン案の背景 EU の機能に関する条約（Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union、以下「EU 機能条約」） 102 条は、EU の域内市場で活動する事業者による市場支配的地位の濫用を禁止しています。 2024 年 8 月 1 日、欧州委員会は、EU 機能条約 102 条の排除型市場支配的地位の濫用 （exclusionary abuse）に関するガイドライン案（以下「本ガイドライン案」）を公表しました 1。本ガイドライン案 は 2024 年 10 月 31 日を期限とした意見公募（パブリックコメント）に付されています。 本ガイドライン案は、EU 機能条約 102 条の定める排除型市場支配的地位の濫用に関する EU 裁判所 の判例について、欧州委員会の理解を整理するものであり、欧州委員会は本ガイドライン案の公表により、 「法的安定性を高め、事業者が、自らの行為について、EU 機能条約 102 条の定める排除型市場支配的 地位の濫用に該当するか否かを自ら判断することに資する」ことを意図しています 2。

Recently, in State Bank of India v. India Power Corporation Ltd., Civil Appeal 10424 of 2024, the Hon’ble Supreme Court adjudicated upon the issue of certified copy of Order that is filed along with the appeal. 

The Hon’ble Supreme Court analysed several provisions of NCLT Rules and NCLAT Rules and held as follows:

i) Both the certified copy submitted free of cost as well as the certified copy which is made available on payment of cost are treated as “certified copies” for the purpose of Rule 50 of NCLT Rules.

The Delaware Chancery Court placed Arrowood Indemnity Company in liquidation on November 8, 2023, by a liquidation order. The court found Arrowood to be insolvent by the court, and appointed a receiver to liquidate Arrowood’s assets, evaluate any claims made against Arrowood and evaluate the payment of claims made against it.

Background

On 25 October 2024, the Dutch Supreme Court ruled in a ground-breaking judgment in Royal IHC that a WHOA plan may change creditors’ and shareholders’ rights but cannot impose more onerous obligations. More specifically, the lenders cannot be compelled to provide new financing or to accept new terms and still provide new funds under previously committed credit facilities (i.e., undrawn commitments).