Case 1
Convoy Collateral Ltd v Broad Idea International Ltd and Cho Kwai Chee [2021] UKPC 24
Lord Leggatt, Lord Briggs, Lord Sales, Lord Hamblen (in the majority) and Sir Geoffrey Vos MR Lord Reed, Lord Hodge (in the minority), 4 October 2021
The latest battle between the Corbin & King Group, owner of a number of restaurants including the Wolseley, and its lender provides important clarity on when a moratorium should be terminated by its monitors.
We have summarized the key judgments passed by the Supreme Court (SC), High Court (HC), National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), and the National Company Law Tribunals (NCLT). Please see below the summary of the relevant regulatory developments. 1) ADVANCE EXTENDED BY A DIRECTOR TO THE COMPANY IS A FINANCIAL DEBT Matter: Mrs. Jayanthi G. Ravi v. Chemizol Additives Pvt. Ltd. Order dated: 03 January 2022 Summary: In the present case, Mrs. Jayanthi G. Ravi (Creditor), a former director of Chemizol Additives Pvt. Ltd.
简介
在Stanford International Bank Ltd (in liquidation) v HSBC Bank PLC [2021] EWCA Civ 535一案中，英国汇丰银行（「汇丰」）被指违反Quincecare责任及提供不诚实的协助，因而被控疏忽。英国上诉法院（「上诉庭」）一致裁定汇丰胜诉，两项申索均被驳回。
背景
于2009年倒闭清盘的Stanford International Bank Limited（「原告人」）在2003至2009年期间在汇丰持有多个帐户（「涉案帐户」）。原告人因被用作史上其中一个最大的庞兹骗局而欠债超过50亿美元。原告人的清盘人（「清盘人」）向汇丰提出以下两项申索：
Recent conflicting judgments of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and the High Courts had given rise to ambiguity regarding the jurisdiction of NCLT vis-à-vis personal guarantors under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code).
根据全国人大常委会执法检查组关于检查企业破产法实施情况的报告，党的十八大以来，随着供给侧结构性改革持续深化，加快建立和完善市场主体挽救和退出机制，加之新冠肺炎疫情对于宏观经济运行的深刻影响，我国企业破产案件数量快速上升，2017年至2020年受理和审结的破产案件分别占到《企业破产法》实施以来案件总量的54%和41%。[1]区别于传统的中小企业破产重整，大型或超大型企业集团的资产结构复杂、债务规模巨大、历史遗留问题众多，进入破产重整程序之后，如何在《企业破产法》的框架下实现资产重组与债务清偿、持续运营与杠杆处置、重整效率与债权人保护等多重利益关系的合理平衡，成为破产实务中的难点与痛点。随着2021年B集团实质合并重整案（以下简称“B集团重整案”）和海航集团等三百二十一家公司实质合并重整案（以下简称“海航集团重整案”）中信托计划的引入，破产重整程序中引入信托计划作为新型破产重整模式引起业界关注。本文将结合笔者在破产重整程序中设立信托计划的服务经验，简要介绍破产重整程序中信托计划定位与架构、信托机制与破产重整程序的衔接等相关实务难点问题，以供参考。
一. 破产重整程序中信托计划的概念和优势
In a recent decision,1 the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands considered the approach the Court will take when reviewing official liquidators' fees, the extent to which the Wednesbury reasonableness test is relevant and the need to file sufficient evidence in advance of the fee approval application hearing.
A recently published case has shone a new light on the well-known fact of English company law – that a company has its own legal personality and is therefore separate and distinct from its members and directors.
Thus, a company shields its members and directors from most liabilities. For directors, this protective veil is pierced in certain limited circumstances such as those set out below.
This is one of a series of articles we at Morton Fraser are producing to guide our clients through the wholesale change proposed in Scots law in relation to security over goods, intellectual property and shares, on the one hand, and invoice finance or the purchase of receivables, on the other. For a general introduction to what the Bill covers, see here.
The United States District Court for the Western District of New York recently upheld the findings of a Bankruptcy Court, which held that the in rem tax foreclosure of the subject property was a fraudulent conveyance. SeeDuvall v. Cty. of Ont., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 216970 (W.D.N.Y. 2021). The matter arose from the tax foreclosure of property (the “Property”) for the non-payment of taxes arising in 2015. In October 2016, the County issued a foreclosure petition and notices, advising that interested parties had the right to redeem the Property on or before January 13, 2017.