The use of a company name which is the same or similar to the name of an insolvent company is fraught with complications.
Were you at any stage involved in a company which went into liquidation or administration? Are you now involved in another business with the same or a similar name? If so, you could inadvertently have fallen foul of the criminal and civil liability under Section 216 of the Insolvency Act 1986. Joseph Miller explains the pitfalls of this complicated and often overlooked area of insolvency law.
The Reserve Bank of India (“RBI”) has, in its capacity as the regulator of non-banking financial companies and under the powers conferred to it pursuant to Section 45-IE (1) of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 (“RBI Act”), superseded the Board of Directors of SIFL and SEFL.
The press release of even date from the RBI also stipulates the following:
1) The step has been taken owing to governance concerns and defaults by SIFL and SEFL in meeting their various payment obligations.
Creditors can often confuse (i) the outlawed practice of “phoenixing” with (ii) pre-pack administrations. The former is an abuse of the privilege of limited liability through (often repeatedly) liquidating a company laden with debts only to emerge shortly after under the guise of a new limited company, debt free, effectively carrying on the exact same business with the same name, premises and people.
The Court of Appeal has overturned a decision of the High Court on whether immunity from suit, generally afforded to participants in court proceedings, extends to an examinee during an examination conducted under section 236 of the Insolvency Act 1986 ("Section 236").
A hotly anticipated decision in the ongoing saga of the Babcock & Brown liquidation was handed down last week, resulting in another win for the liquidator (represented by Johnson Winter & Slattery) and further highlighting the challenges facing liquidators when they are thrust into a quasi-judicial function when assessing proofs of debt.
The Bottom Line:
A Hong Kong court has severely criticised the provisional liquidators (PLs) appointed by the court in the company’s place of incorporation in the Cayman Islands, for trying to interfere with the rights of creditors in Hong Kong and to bypass the statutory scheme of winding-up in Hong Kong. In GTI Holdings Limited [2022] HKCFI 2598, the Honourable Madam Justice Linda Chan said it was a matter of concern to see that solicitors and counsel engaged by the PLs in Hong Kong "did not bring home to the provisional liquidators their duties owed to the creditors and to this court".
This article first appeared in Volume 20, Issue 1 of International Corporate Rescue and is reprinted with the permission of Chase Cambria Publishing - www.chasecambria.com.
Synopsis
According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, approximately 20 percent of new businesses fail during the first two years of being open, 45 percent during the first five years and 65 percent during the first 10 years. The unprecedented financial challenges of COVID-19 have increased the number of business failures and economists project that the number of failures will accelerate in the quarters ahead.
On 24 December 2020, the Federal Court of Australia published reasons for a decision in which I appeared for the liquidators of two related companies, Bestjet Travel Pty Ltd (in liq) and Wynyard Travel Pty Ltd (in liq). The decision can be accessed here.