The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its order dated April 18, 2022 in State Bank of India Vs Krishidhan Seeds Private Limited has observed that Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable to proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
Brief Facts
On June 1, 2022, Charlotte N.C.-based GT Real Estate Holdings, LLC, the company Carolina Panthers owner David Tepper created specifically for the Panthers new headquarters project in Rock Hill, S.C., filed a petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the Bankruptcy Court for District of Delaware after the deal to develop the new facility collapsed (Case No. 22-10505).
On June 1, 2022, California-based Zosano Pharma Corporation, a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company enabling the systemic administration of therapeutics and other bioactive molecules to patients using a proprietary transdermal microneedle patch system, filed a petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the Bankruptcy Court for District of Delaware (Case No. 22-10506).
簡介
最近在Trinity Concept Ltd (In Liq) v Wong Kung Sang (黃共生) [2022] 1 HKLRD 1388一案中，原告人提出申索，要求被告人交代帳目。被告人以有關訴訟沒有在《時效條例》（香港法例第347章）第20(2) 條訂明的六年訴訟時效內提出為由，申請剔除原告人的申索，但被原訟法庭（「法院」）駁回。
背景
Trinity Concept Ltd（「原告人」）是一間正在清盤的公司，它控告其兩名前董事（「被告人」）違反受信責任，向第三方作出合共139筆付款而沒有妥當解釋（「可疑交易」）。原告人請求法院頒令被告人交代帳目，並在製備帳目後交出結欠的資產或付款，或命令被告人作出衡平法補償。被告人認為可疑交易距離令狀發出已超過六年，因此本案已喪失訴訟時效，應根據《時效條例》第4(2) 條予以駁回。
裁決
法院指出下列與剔除申請有關的重要問題：
Em sessão realizada em 27 de abril de 2022, a Segunda Seção do Superior Tribunal de Justiça (STJ) julgou o Recurso Especial nº 1655705/SP, cujo acórdão recém-divulgado impôs a forma de pagamento fixada em Plano de Recuperação Judicial (PRJ) a determinado credor que não fez parte da recuperação judicial e pretendia cobrar o seu crédito individualmente.
Claims against directors for unsuccessful tax avoidance schemes when their company enters into insolvency is not a new phenomenon, but a very recent case introduces a new potential defence for directors, as our Insolvency and Corporate Recovery specialist Tony Sampson explains.
Why would HMRC challenge a scheme?
简介
最近在Trinity Concept Ltd (In Liq) v Wong Kung Sang (黄共生) [2022] 1 HKLRD 1388一案中，原告人提出申索，要求被告人交代账目。被告人以有关诉讼没有在《时效条例》（香港法例第347章）第20(2) 条订明的六年诉讼时效内提出为由，申请剔除原告人的申索，但被原讼法庭（「法院」）驳回。
背景
Trinity Concept Ltd（「原告人」）是一间正在清盘的公司，它控告其两名前董事（「被告人」）违反受信责任，向第三方作出合共139笔付款而没有妥当解释（「可疑交易」）。原告人请求法院颁令被告人交代账目，并在制备账目后交出结欠的资产或付款，或命令被告人作出衡平法补偿。被告人认为可疑交易距离令状发出已超过六年，因此本案已丧失诉讼时效，应根据《时效条例》第4(2) 条予以驳回。
裁决
法院指出下列与剔除申请有关的重要问题：
The Bankruptcy Protector
Bankruptcy Basics for New and Non-Bankruptcy Attorneys
This entry is part of Nelson Mullins’s ongoing “Bankruptcy Basics” blog series that is intended to address foundational aspects of bankruptcy for non-bankruptcy practitioners and professionals. This entry will discuss lease rejection in chapter 11 bankruptcy cases.
In MNP Ltd. v. Canada Revenue Agency (MNP v CRA), the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench (“ABQB”) clarified the effect of bankruptcy on a writ of enforcement’s “binding interest” acquired on registration against a debtor’s land, ultimately holding that whatever priority a writ’s binding interest has before bankruptcy, it is undercut by the debtor’s bankruptcy. In so doing, the ABQB reaffirmed the validity of a “priority flip” between secured creditors and unsecured judgment creditors upon a debtor’s bankruptcy.
Background
Introduction
In the recent case of Trinity Concept Ltd (In Liq) v Wong Kung Sang (黃共生) [2022] 1 HKLRD 1388, the Court of First Instance (“Court”) dismissed the defendant’s application to strike out a claim for an account on the ground that the action was not commenced within the six-year limitation period under section 20(2) of the Limitation Ordinance (Cap. 347 of the Laws of Hong Kong) (“LO”).
Background