The Hong Kong Court of Appeal has finally laid to rest the vexed issue of whether an arbitration agreement or a winding-up petition should take precedence in an insolvency situation. In two parallel decisions, the Court of Appeal ruled that an arbitration agreement should be treated in the same way as an exclusive jurisdiction clause and that the principle should be given a wide interpretation.

Nachfolgend wird die Einordnung der Umsatzsteuer in der Insolvenz als Masse- oder Insolvenzforderung und die Auswirkung auf die Gläubigerbefriedigung erläutert.

Introduction

For initiating proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 (“IBC”), categorisation of a creditor as either a “financial creditor” or an “operational creditor” is a rather significant first step. Such categorisation is not merely organisational, but essential since the rights, obligations and procedural requirements for realisation of debt by financial and operational creditors also differ under the IBC.

1. Introduction     

The longstanding debate surrounding the prioritization of crown debts vis-à-vis private debts has entered a new chapter with the advent of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”). Prior to the IBC, the common law principle generally granted crown debts preferential status over unsecured debts. This historical primacy stemmed from the sovereign's role as the embodiment of the public good, requiring unimpeded revenue collection for the smooth functioning of the State.

Just over a year ago, the Alberta Court of King’s Bench (“ACKB”) decision in Qualex-Landmark Towers v 12-10 Capital Corp (“Qualex”)[1] extended the application of an environmental regulator’s priority entitlements in bankruptcy and insolvency to civ

Delaware’s Court of Chancery has no subject matter jurisdiction over an assignment for benefit of creditors proceeding when the debtor/assignor is an Illinois corporation with no assets or operations in Delaware, even when its ABC assignee/trustee is from Delaware.

That’s the decision of Delaware’s Court of Chancery in In re Vernon Hills Serv. Co., 2024 Del. Ch., C.A. No. 2021-0783 (issued March 28, 2024).

Facts

The Supreme Court (SC) in Global Credit Capital Limited & Anr v. Sach Marketing Private Limited & Anr, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 649 upheld the judgment and order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi Bench (NCLAT), dated 07 October 2021 (Impugned Order) by which Sach Marketing Private Limited (Sach) was held to be a ‘financial creditor’ of Mount Shivalik Industries Limited, the corporate debtor, (CD) in corporate insolvency resolution proceedings under the provisions of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC).

In its recent judgement of Foo Kian Beng v OP3 International Pte. Ltd. [2024] SGCA 10, the Singapore Court of Appeal laid down some key principles regarding the scope of directors' duties to creditors, i.e. the "creditor duty". These principles serve as useful guidance not just for directors to understand how they should discharge their duties but also for creditors seeking to hold directors to account. We set out some practical guidance for creditors on ensuring that directors discharge the "creditor duty".

What does the "creditor duty" of directors encompass?

2275518 Ontario Inc. v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank, 2024 ONCA 343

On May 6, 2024, the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld a summary judgment motion decision in favour of The Toronto-Dominion Bank (“TD Bank”) in 2275518 Ontario Inc. v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank, 2024 ONCA 343.^[1]

In the case of Shiv Charan and Ors.