Judgment has been reserved on the sanction of Houst Ltd’s restructuring plan at a hearing held in front of Zacaroli J on Friday morning (15 July 2022), while the company gathers the further valuation information requested by the court. If sanctioned, the plan will be the first use of the restructuring plan by an SME, and will involve a “cram” of HMRC notwithstanding the tax authority’s secondary preferential creditor status.

The proposed plan

Lawyers occasionally wonder how the law ended up as it is. We had that experience after the Dutch Supreme Court’s decision of 1 July 2022 (Rabobank/Ten Berge q.q.; ECLI:NL:HR:2022:984), regarding the possibility or impossibility of pledging a claim. The Supreme Court decided that claims that have been made non-transferable under property law in a contractual agreement between a creditor and a debtor, cannot be pledged either.

The fallout from failed tax saving arrangements using Employee Benefit Trusts (“EBTs”) continues. In Hunt, directors who in reliance on tax advice from a firm of accountants, arranged for a company to use an EBT, were found not in breach of duty.  The decision whilst of comfort to directors, increases the likelihood of recovery actions following failed tax saving schemes shifting back on the accountancy firm tax advisors. 

Background

I. Introduction

Proceedings against personal guarantors find their origin in Section 128 of the Contract Act, 1872 which deals with the co-extensive liability of a surety. It has long been considered that a surety’s liability to pay the debt is not removed by reason of the creditor’s omission to sue the principal debtor. Such a creditor is not bound to exhaust his remedy against the principal debtor before suing the surety, and a suit may be maintained against the surety even though the principal debtor has not been sued.

INTRODUCTION:

There have been several so-called "uptier" transactions over the last several years, where lenders have provided "rescue financing" to a distressed company senior in priority to existing debt. While there has been significant commentary about whether such financings are contractually permitted, there have been few decisions analyzing challenges to such transactions.¹ In Bayside Capital Inc. v. TPC Group Inc.

债权人该如何策略追讨欠款及清盘行动

客户简报

2022 年 7 月 19 日

关于香港法院就境外公司清盘和承认境外清盘的权力的最新案例

如果呈请人会因提起法院的清盘程序而获益，而不是从颁布清盘令中获益，那么香港法院是否应该对境外公司行使清盘的司法管辖权？香港终审法院（终审法院）近期对这一问题作了阐明¹。

原讼法庭亦阐述了评估是否应承认境外清盘以及是否应向境外委任的清盘人提供协助的正确做法²。

The Court of Final Appeal (the CFA) has recently clarified whether a Hong Kong court should exercise its winding-up jurisdiction over foreign companies if the petitioner would derive benefit from the invocation of the court’s winding-up process but not from the making of a winding-up order [1].

Mediation-in-bankruptcy has been an effective tool for resolving mass tort cases.

That effectiveness has been for the benefit of all parties involved, such as:

Between the lines... For Private Circulation-Educational & Information purpose only Vaish Associates Advocates… Distinct. By Experience. I. Supreme Court: NCLT/NCLAT should not sit in appeal over commercial wisdom of the CoC to allow withdrawal of CIRP. The Hon’ble Supreme Court (“SC”) has in its judgment dated June 3, 2022, in the matter of Vallal RCK v. M/s. Siva Industries and Holdings Limited and Others [Civil Appeal Nos.