Introduction

Dale G. Higer is an attorney and a long-time Commissioner for the State of Idaho on the Uniform Law Commission. His newest role is Chair of the Commission’s newly-formed Study Committee on Assignments for Benefit of Creditors.

What follows is Mr. Higer’s report on the Commission and on the work of the newly formed Study Committee.

Uniform Law Commission

简介

最近在关于申请罢免清盘人的Shearman & Sterling (a firm) and others v Asia-Pac Infrastructure Development Limited (in creditor’s voluntary liquidation) and others [2022] HKCFI 218一案中，法院在详细考虑提出此项申请所需的资格后驳回申请，裁定申请人欠缺所需资格。

背景

第一被告人（「该公司」）是一间正在进行债权人自愿清盘的公司。第二及第三被告人（分别为「邓先生」及「侯女士」）是该公司的清盘人。该公司在高院民事诉讼2006年第806号（「高院讼案」）是原告人之一，而本案的原告人（「谢尔曼等人」）是高院讼案的被告人。

The Bankruptcy Protector

Chapter 15 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code provides a streamlined process for recognition (a form of comity) of a foreign insolvency proceeding. However, courts are divided as to whether a foreign debtor must satisfy the general definition of “debtor” as that term is used in section 109(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, which requires a debtor seeking bankruptcy relief to reside or have a domicile, a place of business, or property in the United States.

As a result of Purdue Pharma’s proposed plan of reorganization, and the ongoing opioid epidemic that continues to grip the nation, the debate over non-consensual third-party releases has gone mainstream despite being a popular tool for debtors for decades.

On 16 March 2022, the Slovak Parliament approved the anticipated new act on solving threatened bankruptcy (the Act) and also amended related legislative documents. It implements the Directive (EU) 2019/1023 on preventive restructuring, whose implementation was postponed by one year to 17 July 2022 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Act aims to reform insolvency in Slovakia and make preventive mechanisms effective enough to reduce the number of bankruptcies.

To whom does the Act apply?

This article was first published in India Business Law Journal on 4 March 2022

A director has been found liable in the High Court for fraudulent trading as a result of failing to carry out proper due diligence in a series of transactions which were found to be part of a VAT fraud scheme.

The claim was brought against the director by the Liquidator of JD Group Limited (the “Company”).

Background

Introduction