Section 133 of the Companies Act 71 of 2008 provides for a general moratorium on legal proceedings against a company in business rescue.
I wrote an article published in the June issue of Without Prejudice in which this question was considered. I criticised the then binding judgment of Chetty t/a Nationwide Electrical v Hart NO and Another (12559/2012) [20141 ZAKZDHC 9 (25 March 2014), as it was held in that case that arbitration proceedings do not constitute legal proceedings for purposes of section 133 of the Act.
One of the first cases involving the operation of section 153(1)(a)(ii) of the Companies Act 71 of 2008 is the matter of Copper Sunset Trading 220 (Pty) Ltd t/a Build It Lephalale (In Business Rescue) and Spar Group Limited (First Respondent) and Normandien Farms (Pty) Ltd (Second Respondent). This matter was decided under case 365/2014 in the High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Pretoria) functioning as Limpopo Division, Polokwane.
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Decision of 9 July 2012, No. 11-3920, Sunbeam Products, Inc. v. Chicago AM. MFG. LLC, and United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, Decision of 30 August 2012, No. 11–1850, In Re Interstate Bakeries Corp.
The U.S. Courts of Appeal for the Seventh and Eighth Circuits came to different conclusions in deciding the right of a trademark licensee to continue using the licensed mark after rejection or attempted rejection of the trademark license by a bankrupt licensor.
In a significant decision, the Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court (Shenzhen court) has ordered formal recognition in the mainland for Hong Kong appointed liquidators. This is the first occasion on which a mainland court has formally recognized and granted assistance to Hong Kong liquidators, expressly granting them powers to deal with assets located in the mainland under the new insolvency co-operation mechanism concluded between Hong Kong and the mainland.
On 26 November 2020, the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (Coronavirus) (Suspension of Liability for Wrongful Trading and Extension of the Relevant Period) Regulations 2020 (the “Regulations”) came into force. As well as extending to 31 March 2021 the “relevant period” for certain temporary modifications to the holding of company meetings, the Regulations reintroduce the suspension of the liability for wrongful trading.
Wenn es eilt, bietet die ZPO Mittel und Wege, schnell ans Ziel zu kommen. Der Eilrechtsschutz ist in der COVID-19-Pandemie daher stark im Fokus. Es stellen sich Fragen wie „, Können die Gerichte helfen, die Lieferkette zu stützen?, Wie lässt sich ein Eilverfahren derzeit praktisch durchführen?, Ist durch ‚Corona‘ jetzt alles dringlich?“. Dieser Beitrag unserer Reihe „Coronavirus & Zivilprozess“ verschafft einen Überblick.
Überblick: Eilrechtsschutz mittels Arrest und einstweiliger Verfügung
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that bankrupt trademark licensors cannot use federal bankruptcy law to rescind the rights of their trademark licensees to continue use of duly licensed trademarks. The decision settles a long-simmering circuit split on a question that the International Trademark Association has labelled “the most significant unresolved legal issue in trademark licensing.”
Ein Insolvenzverwalter kann sich nach Anzeige der Masseunzulänglichkeit nicht auf die Wirksamkeit einer bereits ausgesprochenen Kündigung verlassen und das Ergebnis des Kündigungsschutzprozesses abwarten, sondern muss erneut kündigen, um die Entstehung von weiteren Ansprüchen des Arbeitnehmers als Neumasseverbindlichkeiten gemäß § 209 Abs. 2 Nr.
June 2017
Contents
Introduction 1. Better accessibility to Singapore's corporate rescue and restructuring framework for foreign companies 2.Chapter 11 style - Rescue financing / DIP financing 3.Enhanced moratoriums with extra territorial effect 4.Increased disclosure, cram-downs and pre-packs 5. The adoption of UNCITRAL Model Law Conclusion Your contacts
1
2 3 4 6 8 1 1
2017 Singapore Insolvency and Restructuring Reforms June 2017
1
Introduction
In Deutsche Bank AG v Sebastian Holdings Inc and another (2015), the High Court declined to set aside an order under CPR Part 71 that a non-resident foreign officer of a judgment debtor provide information needed to enforce the judgment. There is no requirement that there be "exceptional circumstances" for such an order to be made.
Background