简介
最近在关于申请罢免清盘人的Shearman & Sterling (a firm) and others v Asia-Pac Infrastructure Development Limited (in creditor’s voluntary liquidation) and others [2022] HKCFI 218一案中，法院在详细考虑提出此项申请所需的资格后驳回申请，裁定申请人欠缺所需资格。
背景
第一被告人（「该公司」）是一间正在进行债权人自愿清盘的公司。第二及第三被告人（分别为「邓先生」及「侯女士」）是该公司的清盘人。该公司在高院民事诉讼2006年第806号（「高院讼案」）是原告人之一，而本案的原告人（「谢尔曼等人」）是高院讼案的被告人。
The Bankruptcy Protector
As a result of Purdue Pharma’s proposed plan of reorganization, and the ongoing opioid epidemic that continues to grip the nation, the debate over non-consensual third-party releases has gone mainstream despite being a popular tool for debtors for decades.
This article was first published in India Business Law Journal on 4 March 2022
A director has been found liable in the High Court for fraudulent trading as a result of failing to carry out proper due diligence in a series of transactions which were found to be part of a VAT fraud scheme.
The claim was brought against the director by the Liquidator of JD Group Limited (the “Company”).
Background
Introduction
Two recent decisions by U.S. District Courts have rejected attempts to include nonconsensual third party releases in chapter 11 reorganization plans. These rulings suggest third party releases may be facing increasing push back from the courts.
Australia’s current corporate insolvency regime does not expressly cover how companies which structure themselves through a trust, or businesses which have a corporate trustee (corporate trusts) are to be dealt with during insolvency.
On 15 October 2021, the government released a consultation paper seeking stakeholder views on whether the treatment of corporate trusts in Australia’s insolvency law needs to be clarified. Input was also sought on the benefits which this could deliver and how any new framework might operate.
This consultation process closed on 10 December 2021.
Morton as liquidator of MJ Woodman Electrical Contractors Pty Ltd v Metal Manufactures Pty Limited [2021] FCAFC 228
The Full Court of the Federal Court confirms that a statutory set-off under s 553C(1) of the Corporations Act2001 (Cth) is not available against a liquidator’s claim for the recovery of an unfair preference under s 588FA of the Act.
Background
Despite recent criticisms of venue selection and cries to limit or curtail various provisions of the Bankruptcy Code, a recent decision from the Bankruptcy Court of the Southern District of New York demonstrates that the bankruptcy courts may continue to broadly interpret the scope of their jurisdictional reach and the powers and authorities granted to them under the Bankruptcy Code. In In re JPA No. 111 Co., Ltd., No. 21-12075 (DSJ) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Feb.