Gawain Moore, Ashley Armitage and Oliver Wheeler discuss the sanctioning by the Business and Property Courts in Leeds of the first creditor-led Part 26A restructuring plan.
mourant.com 2021934/73079902/3 GUIDE Liquidating an insolvent Jersey company Last reviewed: February 2023 Contents When is a company insolvent? 2 Désastre proceedings under the Bankruptcy Law 2 Who may make an application?
Protecting your business from exposure to supplier and customer insolvency
As we move through Q1 of 2023, significant shifts are occurring in the Global financial and economic landscape which are of significant consequence for business. The marked upward shift in the cost (and reduced availability) of finance, largely unseen for over a decade, combined with high energy and natural resource/raw material costs and challenges and currency fluctuations has the potential to sharply to expose financial distress in businesses in many countries and global supply chains.
mourant.com 2021934/73072975/2 GUIDE Challenging transactions in a Jersey insolvency Last reviewed: January 2023 Contents When is a company insolvent?
Introduction
Source of delay
Comment
Information utilities (IUs) established under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code provide authenticated information about debt and default, which an adjudicating authority can rely on as evidence of money owed by the company facing insolvency.
Last month, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Massachusetts denied confirmation of a cannabis company employee’s Chapter 13 plan and dismissed his bankruptcy case. The employee, Scott H. Blumsack (the “Debtor”), is a general manager who is licensed in Massachusetts to work for Society Cannabis Co., a Massachusetts-licensed retailer, wholesaler, and producer of cannabis products.
Introduction - はじめに
2016年破産倒産法は、清算時における債権者の債務弁済を実現する仕組みを提供します。また、有担保債権者は優先的な債権回収が可能です。しかしながら、State Tax Officer v. Rainbow Papers Ltd.（Rainbow Papers Judgement）において、これを覆す判決が下されました。2003 年の Gujarat Value Added Tax Act（GVAT法）に基づいて発生する税金の請求について、政府に有利に設定された「担保権」により、税務当局は法の下の「有担保債権者」である、と判示したのです。再建計画が政府への法定納付金を除外している場合、法規定に準拠しているとは言えず、政府に対する拘束力は持たない、としました。
当該最高裁判所の判決は、破産倒産法の下の法定公課決済の優先順位という側面において、大きな懸念を抱かせるものとなりました。今回の記事では、当該判決が、破産倒産法の本来の目的およびその他の各種判例とどのように対照的であるかについて考察し、解説しています。
Brief facts - 概要
Summary
Today’s statistics reveal a stark reality that insolvencies are continuing to climb in the face of record levels inflation, increasing interest rates and an ongoing cost-of-living crisis, which is pushing businesses to breaking point. The situation is exacerbated by the lack of any new government support for businesses, which are particularly affected by the steep rise in energy costs.
Wind the clock back a couple of years to (dare I mention it…) the Covid-19 pandemic, and insolvency practitioners were getting mildly giddy about a new development in the form of a standalone moratorium. Slotting in at the forefront of the Insolvency Act 1986 courtesy of the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (CIGA), the moratorium was designed to give companies a breathing space to find a solution to their troubles when insolvency was knocking on their door.