The Dutch Supreme Court ruled that "setting aside" or replacing the board is not a requirement to qualify as a de facto director. De facto directors are not required to manage the company instead of, and to the exclusion of, the formal directors.
Background
Under Dutch law, as a matter of principle, only the company (ie a Dutch B.V. or N.V.) is liable for its debts. The directors of the company are in principle not liable.
Every secured lender hates to hear it: Yet another statutory scheme could potentially cause the lender to lose its first priority security interest in certain collateral. While the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA) has been around since 1930, it is often forgotten or overlooked by many lenders. However, to the extent that a lender's collateral includes perishable agricultural commodities, such as when the borrower is a restaurant or grocery store, PACA can present significant risks for a lender.
PACA Basics
In the latest ground breaking decision in Re Guy Kwok-hung Lam[2023] HKCFA 9, the Court of Final Appeal dismissed the appeal and laid to rest a long-standing debate on the vexing question concerning the impact, if any, exclusive jurisdiction clauses (EJCs) have on the presentation of bankruptcy petitions.
The High Court has handed down the most significant decision on restructuring plans since Virgin Active in 2021, applying cross-class cram down to an ad hoc group of dissenting noteholders (the AHG).
Background
Dismissal of a bankruptcy—for bad faith filing—is a rarity.
So, how a bankruptcy court grapples with the bad faith issue . . . and ends up dismissing the bankruptcy . . . can provide a lesson for us all.
What follows is a summary of how a Chapter 11 bankruptcy is dismissed when the Court is convinced that the bankruptcy is intended for the benefit of a non-debtor . . . and not for the benefit of the debtor or its creditors.
The High Court has clarified the grounds for challenging a CVA for guarantee creditors.
Background
Introduction
The law is constantly developing to fit the ever-changing world. Most recently, with the digitalisation of the commercial landscape and the proliferation of cryptocurrencies, NFTs and metaverse-related businesses, the courts have had to apply or adapt the law to deal with novel situations. This was the case in Re Babel Holding Ltd and other matters [2023] SGHC 98, where the Singapore High Court had to apply restructuring and insolvency law in the context of a cryptocurrency-related business.
在终审法院最新颁布的 Re Guy Kwok-hung Lam[2023] HKCFA 9突破性裁决中，终审法院驳回了该案的上诉，并且在判词中就专属管辖权条款（EJC）是否对提交破产呈请有影响这一棘手问题作出裁决，平息了长期对于相关议题的争论。
简而言之，终审法院认可上诉法院大多数法官对于本案的观点，认为一般来说，如果呈请债务的基础争议受制于专属管辖权条款，除非有其他反面因素存在（例如债务人破产的风险将会影响第三方、债务人的呈请以几乎无意义的争议为基础，或者发生滥用法律程序的情况等）， 则法院应驳回该破产呈请。
终审法院在裁定中指出，当只有一名债权人提出破产呈请，而没有证据表明全体债权人都面临风险时，破产制度背后的公共政策因素的重要性则显着降低。
这一裁定反映了法院非常重视当事人自治的原则，以及当事人之间自由达成的协议。该判决将会对破产领域产生深远的影响，以及对处理清算及破产呈请中的仲裁条款产生涟漪效应。
Introduction
In a recent article we considered the nature and extent of directors’ duties to take into account the interests of a company’s creditors when a company is in financial difficulty. A recent High Court decision (Mitchell & Krys v Al Jaber & ors [2023] EWHC 364 (Ch)) considered the issue of directors’ duties in the subsequent situation where a company has entered liquidation. Whilst the relevant company was based in the British Virgin Islands (BVI), the case includes analysis of the position in English law.
On March 28, 2023, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (the “District Court”) rendered an opinion (the “Opinion”)1 affirming the confirmation order of Laurie S.