The Privy Council has considered the question of whether an agreement to settle disputes arising out of a shareholders' agreement by arbitration prevents a party to the agreement pursuing a petition to wind up the company on just and equitable grounds.
Background
Many authorities and commentators have considered cryptocurrencies, and the blockchains that undergird them, as a potentially disruptive force in the financial industry. Now, that disruption has made its way to a different side of finance—bankruptcy, and during the past year, the United States bankruptcy courts have had to confront many unexpected challenges involved in dealing with cryptocurrency.
On October 3rd, 2023, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) amended Section 14(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 thereby exempting the transactions, arrangements, or agreements related to aircraft, aircraft engines, airframes, and helicopters in the aviation industry from the operation of the moratorium imposed upon the admission of an insolvency plea.
In the October 2023 edition of the Restructuring Department Bulletin, we highlight recent decisions and developments impacting the restructuring arena and share the latest news on the Paul, Weiss Restructuring Department.
In the recent case of Uphealth Holdings, Inc. v. Dr. Syed Sabahat Azim, the Calcutta High Court (“CHC”) ruled on the enforceability of moratorium orders from non-reciprocating countries like the United States of America (“US”) in Indian courts.
El Tribunal Supremo, en su sentencia número 513/2024, de 17 de abril (Rec. 2443/2020) ("la Sentencia"), confirma la válida legitimación del recurrente declarado en concurso de acreedores con suspensión de facultades, en tanto la administración concursal omitió el deber de sustituirlo en el procedimiento en trámite.
Introduction
Question
In a case where the Liquidator after issuing the certificate that the appellant had won the auction of the subject property, cancelled the e-auction without giving any justification or reason for such cancellation, the Supreme Court has stated that it is incomprehensible that an administrative authority can take a decision without disclosing the reasons for taking such a decision.
“courts agree that . . . evaluating, asserting, pursuing, and defending litigation claims . . . can satisfy Section 1182(1)(A)’s requirement of ‘commercial or business activities.’”