Are you witnessing an increasing trend towards any particular types of dispute?
What is Illegal Phoenix Activity?
The Australian Securities & Investments Commission (ASIC) defines illegal phoenix activity as activity that occurs when a new company, for little or no value, continues the business of an existing company that has been liquidated or abandoned to avoid paying outstanding debts, including taxes, creditors and employee entitlements.
Every now and then we get an example of how a process should work.
That’s exactly what we have, regarding confirmation of a contested Subchapter V plan, in the case of In re Lapeer Aviation, Inc., Case No. 21-31500 in the Eastern Michigan Bankruptcy Court.
In an opinion issued October 12, 2022, (Doc. 264), the Lapeer Court declares that, (i) most of the plan confirmation standards are satisfied, but (ii) the plan is deficient under two confirmation standards and, therefore, cannot be confirmed.
This dossier (“Dossier”) intends to be a one stop guide to keep
our readers abreast with the significant judgements, orders,
circulars, and directions passed in relation to the Real Estate
(Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (“the Act”) and the
rules thereunder which are beneficial for all the stakeholders
of this ever-expanding industry. Volume 2 of the Dossier is a
compilation of all the impactful judgments/orders passed in the
first quarter of the year 2022, i.e., from January 2022 to March
This week’s TGIF considers a recent case where a court ordered that a company’s winding up be stayed, with a view to being terminated, pending payment of the liquidator’s remuneration.
Key takeaways
On 11th November 2022, Mr Justice Zacaroli handed down judgment on an application for directions made by the officeholders of ten different energy supply companies (“ESC” or “ESCs”) seeking clarification on issues arising in the insolvencies of the ESCs which had not previously been the subject of judicial consideration.
In terms of quantum, the issues were valued at in excess of a hundred million pounds across the ten insolvencies and potentially many more millions of pounds on other ESC insolvencies not before the court.
Layoffs often accompany corporate bankruptcy, and employers should be aware of the legal obligations that impact mass layoffs and plant closures. Most notably, the federal WARN Act requires employers to notify the workforce of a mass layoff, a temporary shutdown, or a closure of all or part of a business.
Employers that fail to provide adequate notice could be on the hook for damages of back pay and benefits-related compensation per employee for each day the company violated the WARN Act (up to 60 days).
Introduction
In Matter of J.C. Penney Direct Marketing Services, L.L.C.,1 the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals clarified the extremely deferential standard afforded to a debtor’s “business judgment” decision to reject an unexpired lease under section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code and affirmed the Bankruptcy Court’s ruling allowing rejection of a ground lease notwithstanding allegations of a debtor-sublessor’s bad faith dealings in its negotiations with a sublessee.
Background
In In re Roberts, No. 22-10521, 2022 WL 4592086 (Bankr. D. Colo. Sept. 23, 2022), the Bankruptcy Court of the District of Colorado (the “Bankruptcy Court”) held that a Debtor’s alleged ownership interest in cannabis-related companies did not require a dismissal of the case and that a Chapter 7 trustee could administer the Debtor’s assets. This represents a significant change from prior decisions from this Court, which has usually dismissed any bankruptcy case involving cannabis.
Background