This week’s TGIF considers a recent case where a court ordered that a company’s winding up be stayed, with a view to being terminated, pending payment of the liquidator’s remuneration.
Key takeaways
The Irish Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment signed into law the European Union (Preventive Restructuring) Regulations 2022 on 29 July 2022. This is the first significant piece of legislation dealing with corporate rescue in Ireland since 1990, when the jurisdiction's examinership process was first codified.
The farming and agricultural industry has been dealing with financial challenges even before the pandemic. Those who were in financial jeopardy before the shutdown are forced to rely on taking on even more debt now just to survive. Currently, the sum of debt across the farming sector amounts to a staggering $496 billion according to the USDA.
房地产行业高速发展10余年,在“房住不炒”的宏观背景以及2020年8月“三道红线”政策后,因房地产行业的发展模式及市场发展规律、政策执行力度、国家宏观调控等多方面的原因,房地产市场从2021年9月开始经历行业“缩表”的阵痛,不少大型房地产企业先后出现债务风险,面临诸多的困难处境,继而影响资金方、施工方、材料设备供应方及购房业主等多方主体。房地产市场影响国民经济及民生多个方面,在行业困境下,政府亦在监管、维稳、施救等多方面遇到难题。表面上看,各方主体皆可按政策与法律处理,但实操中,商业诉求与法律的平衡,经济效果与社会效果、法律效果的协调,社会资源的调度与节约,仍需探索最佳路径。
单纯的法律手段难以解决问题的情形下,笔者认为:房地产困境的解决,最终需要落实到具体的房地产项目庭外重组与盘活。开展全行业性的政策拯救或对大型地产公司进行全面的庭外重组盘活,需假以时日并多方共同努力。因此,结合近一年多的地产项目重组盘活经验,笔者希望从政府管理、商业诉求、法律实践等方面,为各方在房地产项目困境中破局提供些建议,达到解决具体房地产项目的实际问题,使项目价值最大化,最大程度实现各方利益诉求,从一定程度上缓解目前房地产困境。
本文仅就困境项目的成因、市场常见盘活方案等问题,从法律角度予以整理,请勿以此作为法律意见在实践中套用。
The recent decision of the Court of Appeal in Fennell v Appelbe [2022] IECA 160, upholding the decision in the High Court, appears at first glance to endorse a stricter approach to restriction proceedings with regard to non-executive directors.
On closer analysis however, it is clear that the judgment is very much fact specific and not inconsistent with the decision of the Supreme Court in the Re Tralee Beef & Lamb Limited [2008] 3 IR 347 case and the decisions of the High Court in cases such as:
As one of the most important and influential countries in the Middle East, it is no surprise that the development of the laws and regulations of the UAE have a major impact on the region. The UAE Bankruptcy Law is no exception, and it has recently been amended to bring it up to date with international standards.
The amendments are particularly relevant for board members, who have a responsibility to ensure the financial health of their companies.
For many years, a discussion had been carried on about the lack of instruments in our legal system that could facilitate the emergence of company crises - before financial and asset difficulties lead to a state of irreversible bankruptcy of companies and consequently make it quicker to avail of solutions that would safeguard their characteristic assets.
Crypto investors were dealt another blow on November 11 when FTX, the world’s second-largest cryptocurrency exchange, filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy relief in the District of Delaware, along with more than 130 related companies and affiliates. The bankruptcy was spawned by liquidity issues brought on by the sudden collapse in value of FTX’s crypto assets. Starting on November 6, customers simultaneously attempted to withdraw their funds and assets from the exchange, causing a situation akin to a classic bank run that led to an estimated $32 billion in value quickly evaporating.
In In re Roberts, No. 22-10521, 2022 WL 4592086 (Bankr. D. Colo. Sept. 23, 2022), the Bankruptcy Court of the District of Colorado (the “Bankruptcy Court”) held that a Debtor’s alleged ownership interest in cannabis-related companies did not require a dismissal of the case and that a Chapter 7 trustee could administer the Debtor’s assets. This represents a significant change from prior decisions from this Court, which has usually dismissed any bankruptcy case involving cannabis.
Background
Layoffs often accompany corporate bankruptcy, and employers should be aware of the legal obligations that impact mass layoffs and plant closures. Most notably, the federal WARN Act requires employers to notify the workforce of a mass layoff, a temporary shutdown, or a closure of all or part of a business.
Employers that fail to provide adequate notice could be on the hook for damages of back pay and benefits-related compensation per employee for each day the company violated the WARN Act (up to 60 days).