The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) was introduced as a one stop solution for resolving insolvencies, which previously was a long-drawn process that did not offer an economically viable arrangement. In 2022, the Indian courts have been guided by the principal of ‘resolution of insolvency of debtor’ over ‘recovery by creditors’ and have refused insolvency applications where they found such application were for recovery of money rather for insolvency of the debtor.
In the current economic environment, directors will be fully focussed on avoiding any breach of their fiduciary duties, particularly if they are directors of companies experiencing or at risk of financial distress.
This client briefing provides a general overview of the duties of directors of Guernsey companies in these circumstances and is not comprehensive. We recommend that clients obtain specific legal advice in relation to any individual matter which may concern them.
Who are the Directors?
Introduction
Canadian tech companies have entered uncharted waters, with a range of factors threatening to produce a liquidity crunch for many of them.
For years, the tech sector enjoyed record volumes of venture capital investment fueled by low interest rates, an inflow of foreign and corporate investment, and the collective desire to create a vibrant tech ecosystem in Canada. As the economic tides have changed, with climbing interest rates and a looming recession, tech companies are facing an increasingly tough fundraising environment.
With the current economic difficulties affecting the tech sector, a number of companies who took Future Fund investment during the pandemic have been faced with the following realities:
The latest insolvency statistics in the UK make for grim reading. Per the government’s official assessment, 1,964 corporate insolvencies took place in December 2022, 32% higher than in the same month in the previous year and 76% higher than the number registered three years previously pre-pandemic. With inflation and energy costs remaining high and government support rolling back, companies will be taking whatever steps they can to remain in business.
Introduction
Singapore's bankruptcy and insolvency laws have been undergoing a structured reform in order to modernise the insolvency regime. As part of this reform, the personal bankruptcy regime has been moving towards administration by Private Trustees in Bankruptcy ("PTIBs") instead of by the Official Assignee ("OA").
The first major review of Australia’s corporate insolvency in more than 30 years is underway with public submissions now closed. The review is broad in its scale, considering the entirety of Australia’s corporate insolvency regime and its related practices and procedures.
While the review is relevant to anyone conducting business in Australia, any developments or changes to corporate insolvency laws are particularly important for businesses in financial distress or creditors looking to recoup debts they are owed.
The corporate insolvency review to date
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) amended the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations 2016 (CIRP Regulations) on 16 September 2022 (the amendment to the CIRP Regulations, Amendment). The Amendment introduced a slew of changes to the CIRP Regulations. One of the key amendments was the introduction of provisions in respect of the sale of one or more assets of the corporate debtor by way of resolution plans.
Background
The bankruptcy of FTX Trading, a major U.S. crypto assets exchange, is bringing to light the pitfalls of global bankruptcy. The reason for this is that FTX Japan, a Japanese subsidiary of FTX Trading, also filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the U.S. This differs from the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers Group given the Japanese subsidiary of FTX Trading did not file for bankruptcy in Japan due to a significant excess of assets.