The Court at first instance held that the Applicants failed to establish that the Company was insolvent. The key findings that informed the Associate Judge’s conclusions included the following:

• the funds that were available to the Company to pay its debts included funds in an offset account in the name of the director (and an account in the name of the director’s wife); and
• the Applicants’ claims were based on unreconciled accounts of the Company.

The Applicants were granted leave to appeal and appealed the decision of the Court a quo.

Ob verwahrte kryptobasierte Vermögenswerte bereits mit Hilfe von Art. 242 SchKG ausgesondert werden konnten, war in der Lehre bisher umstritten. Am 1. August 2021 ist nun Art. 242a SchKG in Kraft getreten, der Klarheit bei der Aussonderung kryptobasierter Vermögenswerte schafft.

Neu wird zudem mit Art. 242b SchKG ein gesetzlicher Anspruch für den Zugang zu Daten geschaffen, die sich in Gewahrsam der Konkursmasse befinden. Damit wurde ein weitgehend unbestrittenes Anliegen ins SchKG aufgenommen.

There has never been a more disruptive time for business. Brexit and the resultant uncertainty arising from the pandemic have dramatically impacted the business landscape over the last 18 months. No matter what the sector, and no matter how big or small the company, every business has been affected by COVID-19 in some way.

Introduction

Rather unfortunately, there are no statutory provisions available to a company to set aside a statutory demand. If a company is served with a statutory demand and disputes the alleged debt, save for agreeing with the alleged creditor not to present a winding-up petition, it has no alternative but to seek relief from the court and obtain an injunction restraining the presentation of a winding-up petition.

Current U.S. bankruptcy law gives companies wide discretion to file a bankruptcy in the venue of their choice. A company can file for bankruptcy in any federal district where it has its “domicile, residence, principal place of business in the United States, or principal assets in the United States” or where an affiliate of the company has a pending bankruptcy case. Often a company whose business primarily is in California will file bankruptcy in another state where it might have a small corporate affiliate.

In June 2020, the "Anti-Crisis Shield 4.0" introduced a simplified form of restructuring proceeding into Polish law. This modified version of the procedure ushered in significant improvements for debtors, including a moratorium on enforcement action and four months to seek the consent of creditors to restructuring proposals, and to seek the approval of the arrangement with the court.

In May 2021, a landmark co-operation mechanism was implemented between Hong Kong and Mainland China in cross-border insolvency matters.

Liquidators from Hong Kong can now apply to the courts in three Mainland "pilot cities" (ie Shanghai, Shenzhen and Xiamen) for recognition and assistance, provided that:

The German Code for Restructuring and Insolvency Law Development (SanInsFoG) came into force in early 2021, resulting in significant changes to the Insolvency Code. The changes impact both self-administration proceedings (where the debtor retains possession and control of its assets in insolvency proceedings, usually to implement a restructuring) and protective shield proceedings (where the debtor develops an insolvency plan). The requirements for self-administration proceedings have become stricter.

Liquidity forecast

Anchorage Capital Master Offshore Ltd v Sparkes (No 3); Bank of Communications Co Ltd v Sparkes (No 2) [2021] NSWSC 1025

One of the key questions for an individual facing bankruptcy is how they can protect their assets from the trustee-in-bankruptcy (trustee) or from creditors. This is particularly relevant for the family/matrimonial home. One of the ways of protecting this asset is via the presumption of advancement.

This article explores a recent appeal case where the presumption of advancement, in relation to the family home, was rebutted.

What is the presumption of advancement?