The High Court has held that where companies have adopted the model articles without amendment, any sole director acting has the power to pass resolutions acting alone.
The long, long awaited Supreme Court Judgment in the Sequana case is finally here. Firstly, for those who may have forgotten what the Supreme Court was grappling with, the issue was 'whether the trigger for the directors’ duty to consider creditors is merely a real risk of, as opposed to a probability of or close proximity to, insolvency'.
You’ve gotta admire the Debtor in In re Deirdre Ventura.
Debtor has been fighting to save a Bed and Breakfast business through bankruptcy: beginning in 2018 with a regular Chapter 11, and then struggling to get into Subchapter V.
Debtor’s is a you-can’t-make-this-stuff-up story of persistence through adversity.
Debtor has survived, for example, an inexplicably-bad appellate opinion refusing to allow Debtor’s Subchapter V election. The appellate opinion declares:
This article is the China Chapter of Sporting Succession in Football, a publication by Sports and Policy Centre, print copy available at: http://www.sportslawandpolicycentre.com/
A. Applicable Regulation of the Member Association
Background
On 5 October 2022, the Supreme Court handed down its long-awaited judgment in BTI 2014 LLC v. Sequana S.A. [2022] UKSC 25 concerning the trigger point at which directors must have regard to the interests of creditors pursuant to s.172(3) of the Companies Act 2006 (the "creditors' interests duty").
Before October 3, 2022, the rules of procedure in the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal (unlike those in most other appeal courts in Canada) imposed a stay of proceedings in most cases as soon as a Notice of Appeal was served and filed. That has now changed.
Robert Chan, instructed by Leon Lai & Co, represented D2-Leung Yung (“Leung”), the former Chief Executive Officer of Peace Mark (Holdings) Ltd, to resist the Plaintiffs’ application to amend their claim to include a plea of wilful default or wilful negligence.
The Supreme Court has refused permission for the case of Lock v Stanley to be appealed, meaning that the Court of Appeal’s approach to questions around the assignment by a liquidator of claims in the insolvent estate stands.
Most notably the Court of Appeal confirmed that a liquidator is under no duty to offer defendants the right to acquire the claims against them unless the failure to do so would be perverse.
2016年破産倒産法および2013年会社法の下、会社法審判所(NCLT)の命令に対しては、会社法上訴審判所(NCLAT)に上訴することができます。上訴期間は、破産倒産法においては最長45日、会社法においては最長90日、となっています。また、2016年NCLAT規則(NCLAT規則)において、上訴または上訴時の添付文書に欠陥があることが判明した場合、上訴を行った当事者は、7日以内に欠陥を修復し、上訴を「再提示(re-present)」しなければならないと規定されています。なお、当該期間は、当事者が十分な理由を示した場合、妥当な期間延長することができます。
To the long list of things people love about lawyers we can add last week’s holding by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals that “Blvd.” is utterly unrecognizable as “Boulevard” – at least by Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code as enacted in Florida.