Recently, the High Court of Delhi, reinforced the application of Section 32A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC“). Section 32A of the IBC states that the liability of a corporate debtor (“CD“) for an offence committed prior to commencement of the corporate insolvency resolution process (“CIRP”) shall cease and the CD shall not be prosecuted for such an offence from the date the resolution plan (“Plan“) has been approved by the adjudicating authority (“AA”).
An appeals court has issued an insightful decision on the availability of damages when an involuntary bankruptcy petition is filed in bad faith. See Stursberg v. Morrison Sund PLLC, No. 23-1186, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 20286 (8th Cir. Aug. 13, 2024).
The decision addresses both the interplay between Bankruptcy Code sections 303 and 305 and federal preemption of state law.
Re Touradji Private Equity Master Fund Ltd において、ケイマン諸島大法廷は、任意清算中の3つのファンドについて、被害を受けた一部の投資家と共同任意清算人による申請に基づき、投資マネージャーの異議を棄却して、監督命令を下しました。
この決定は、裁判所が当該申請について適用する審査基準の指針を示し、会社法(Companies Act)第131条(b)に基づいて任意清算を公的清算に転換することが効果的、経済的、迅速的であると裁判所が考える各種の事例を示しています。
監督命令に適用される審査基準
監督命令とは、裁判所が、任意清算中の会社について、破産管理人としての資格を保有している複数名の者を公的清算人として選任することを含む命令をいいます[1]。この命令は、会社が裁判所によって清算されたかのような効果を有します[2]。すなわち、監督命令が下されると、清算人の権限が拡大され、任意清算中に行使できていた会社株主の残存権限は排斥されます[3]。
会社法においては、裁判所が任意清算について監督命令を下す条件がいくつが規定されており、これには以下の各場合が含まれます。
引言
在市场经济体系中,企业破产不仅是市场自然选择和资源优化配置的体现,也是法治化解决企业深层次矛盾、促进产业结构调整和新旧动能转换的重要途径。破产程序的实施,是一个涉及多方面法律问题的复杂过程,它涉及对债务人资产的评估与处置、以有限的偿债资源对各类债权按照顺位安排统一清偿、终止或维持债务人企业经营等一系列问题。这些法律问题的有效解决,是破产程序能否顺利进行的基础。破产实践中,破产涉税问题实际极其复杂,破产程序常因未充分考虑、预计破产涉税问题而导致债权人的合法权益遭受无端的损害,甚至可能对债务人、重整投资人等利益相关方产生不利影响,甚至埋下法律风险的隐患。
事实上,破产程序并不仅仅意味着处理资产和负债的问题,妥善处理破产涉税问题亦是破产程序的关键环节之一。本文将从破产和税务的双重视角,对企业破产程序中的税务问题进行综合分析。我们将探讨破产清算、和解与重整等不同程序中涉税事项的法律性质及其影响,并提供破产程序中税务处理的策略和建议,以期为相关利益方提供全面、深入的指导。
On 9 July 2024, the Federal Court in Abdul Rashid Mohamad Isa v PTT International Trading Pte Ltd [2024] 5 MLRA 603 (“Abdul Rashid”), with a panel comprising Nallini Pathmanathan FCJ, Hasnah Mohammed Hashim FCJ and Abdul Karim Abdul Jalil FCJ, held inter alia that a Creditor’s Petition could be withdrawn without the consequences of bringing the entire bankruptcy proceedings to an end. Hurry Up
An assignment for the benefit of creditors (ABC) is a process by which a financially distressed company (referred to as the assignor) transfers its assets to a third-party fiduciary (referred to as the assignee). The assignee is responsible for liquidating those assets and distributing the proceeds to the assignor's creditors, pursuant to the priorities established under applicable law. From the perspective of a creditor, there are many important distinctions between an ABC and a bankruptcy case.
Key Issues
On August 31, 2022, significant amendments to Part V of the Cayman Islands Companies Act (“Act”) took effect to revamp the Cayman Islands restructuring regime. These amendments introduced the new role of a court-appointed “Restructuring Officer” and a dedicated “Restructuring Petition.” The Cayman Islands restructuring officer regime (“RO Regime”) shares certain features with the Chapter 11 bankruptcy procedure in the US and Canada’s Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act.
In a recent decision by the Supreme Court of New South Wales regarding unfair preference claims - In the matter of Pacific Plumbing Group Pty Limited (in liquidation) [2024] NSWSC 525 – Justice Black provides guidance to liquidators on what is required to recover payments made to a third party on behalf of an insolvent company as unfair preferences.
In particular, the case highlighted that a liquidator has the burden of proof to show that:
Introduction
In certain circumstances, the liquidator of a British Virgin Islands (“BVI”) company may be able to set aside certain transactions which took place in the lead up to the company’s liquidation. It is important for those concerned with the affairs of a BVI company that they are aware of the statutory powers available to the liquidator.