In a landmark judgment in Re Compuage Infocom Ltd and Anr., the Singapore High Court (“Singapore HC”) has, for the very first time, recognised a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”) initiated under the Indian Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) as a ‘foreign main proceeding’ under the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency (“Model Law”).
On the heels of financial distress, Consolidated Burger Holdings LLC, along with two affiliates, has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. This Burger King franchisee operates 57 restaurant locations across Florida and Georgia, including standalone stores and Walmart-based outlets. At its peak, the company managed 75 locations with 1,500 employees. Today, it employs 773 individuals, including 697 hourly and 76 salaried workers, with most positions at the restaurant level.
Case Title: Ganesh Ramkisan Rajale v. Panchtatwa Milk Industries Private Limited
Facts of the Case
Case:Bahadur Ram Mallah (Ex-Director, Uniworth Textiles Limited) Versus Assets Reconstruction Company (India) Limited and Anr
Facts of the Case
ICICI Bank and IFCI Ltd. had sanctioned loan facilities to Uniworth Textiles Ltd. (“UTL”), a company part of the larger Uniworth Group. These loan accounts eventually turned non-performing, and both banks assigned their respective debts to the Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. (“ARC”) — ICICI's on 31.03.2004 and IFCI’s on 12.01.2007.
Case:Rahee Jhajharia E to E JV v. MB Power (Madhya Pradesh Ltd.)
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), New Delhi, has ruled that an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), cannot be admitted when there is no direct contractual relationship between the Operational Creditor and the Corporate Debtor. In this case the Tribunal dismissed the claim of ₹16.08 crore, holding that the invoices were raised by the Appellant against Hindustan Thermal and not to the Corporate Debtor itself.
Case: Armaco Infralinks Pvt. Ltd. Versus B. S. Ispat Pvt. Ltd.
Facts of the Case
Armaco Infralinks Pvt. Ltd. (Operational Creditor) advanced ₹17,53,00,000 to B. S. Ispat Pvt. Ltd. (Corporate Debtor) between April 2021 and September 14, 2022, for the supply of coal. However, the Corporate Debtor supplied coal worth only ₹8,45,34,053, leaving an outstanding amount of ₹9,07,65,947.
This week’s TGIF considers a recent decision of the High Court of Australia, in which a 4:3 majority held that a former trustee is not owed any fiduciary obligation by a successor trustee.
Key takeaways
On 8 April 2025, Mr Justice Marcus Smith delivered judgment granting Petrofac Limited and Petrofac International (UAE) LLC (the Plan Companies) permission to convene creditor meetings in respect of two inter-conditional restructuring Plans (the Plans). The fulsome judgment, following hearings on 28 February and 20 March, contains a number of interesting points:
在某些情况下，开曼公司的官方清算人可能能够采取行动追回公司破产前转移的资产。对于那些关注濒临破产的开曼公司事务的人来说，了解开曼群岛官方清算人和大法院所拥有的法定权力至关重要。
可撤销的优先权
《公司法（修订版）》（「该法」）规定，「在公司无法偿还第93 条所指的债务时，公司为了使该债权人优先于其他债权人而对任何债权人作出、招致、承担或遭受的任何财产转让或转移，或对财产的抵押，以及每项付款义务和司法程序，如果是在清算开始前六个月内作出、招致、承担或遭受的，经公司清算人申请，均可撤销。」
值得注意的是，如果在清算开始前六 (6) 个月内发生、产生、取得或遭受付款，则向开曼公司「关联方」支付的款项应被视为是为了给予债权人优先权而支付，因此，根据公司清算人的申请，该款项可予撤销。
如果债权人有能力控制开曼公司或在公司财务和经营决策方面施加重大影响，则该债权人应被视为「关联方」。
公司在什么情况下无法偿还债务？
若发生下列情况，开曼公司将被视为无力偿还债务：
(a) 未遵守法定要求；