On November 7, 2024, a 3 (three) judge bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court”) delivered their judgment in the matter of State Bank of India and Ors. vs. The Consortium of Mr. Murari Lal Jalan and Mr. Florian Fritsch and Anr.1,inter alia, ordering liquidation of Jet Airways (India) Limited (“Jet Airways”).

It is not uncommon for contractors, in several industry sectors, to contract with a special purpose vehicle (SPV), whose day-to-day management is effectively controlled by a parent company, and the SPV has with little to no assets beyond cash flow provided by its parent. In this article we look at what a claimant could do outside of the traditional insolvency process in circumstances where the SPV goes into a form of external administration such as administration or liquidation and there are no assets available to the external administrators.

Two recent Supreme Court of Canada decisions demonstrate that the corporate attribution doctrine is not a one-size-fits-all approach.

Introduction

In this case the Court applied traditional constructive trust principles to disputed facts in order to determine whether a specific property came within the estate of a bankrupt. It will be of interest to practitioners advising in the area of challenged transfers in the context of insolvency.

The Trustees in the bankruptcy of Shaun Collins made an application pursuant to s.339 Insolvency Act 1986, to challenge a disposition of land. The land in question was a flat and the disposition was a 2021 transfer of a flat in London.

報載曾為全球第二大的加密貨幣交易所FTX於2022年11月聲請美國破產法第11章破產重組，其破產重組計畫終於在2024年10月獲得美國德拉瓦州破產法院法官核准。受益於加密貨幣價值的大幅提升及美國國稅局同意減少稅捐債權之數額，FTX的用戶可獲得以破產當時加密貨幣的美元計價之賠償，若以此計算，大部分的用戶均可取回全額賠償及部分利息。

雖然仍有用戶認為加密貨幣現在之價值遠高於FTX破產時的價值，若無法返還用戶原本持有之加密貨幣，根本不算是全額賠償。但無論如何，在破產程序中債權人能獲得全額賠償及部分利息，是相當少見的狀況。

■美為讓債務人重獲新生，對稅捐債權保障可有所退讓

This week’s TGIF examines a recent decision where the Federal Court considered when a proof of debt would be ‘admitted’ within the meaning of section 563B of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and therefore attract the statutory entitlement to interest.

Key takeaways

In Harrington v Purdue Pharma,¹ the United States Supreme Court held that so-called “non-consensual third-party releases” were not permitted in restructuring plans proposed under Chapter 11 of the US Bankruptcy Code. A “third-party release” arises where creditors are asked to vote on a restructuring plan or scheme which not only proposes to release the debtor company (i.e. the company that has petitioned for bankruptcy or is proposing the scheme) from all liability but to also release other third parties from any associated liability.

The common law of assignments for benefit of creditors (“ABC”) has been around for centuries.

ABC is a business debtor’s voluntary liquidation tool—typically utilized in cooperation with a major secured creditor.

Historically, ABCs are attractive to debtors and creditors alike as an efficient, mostly out-of-court tool for maximizing the liquidation value of a business—for the benefit of creditors.

The decision handed down in Re A Company [2024] EWHC 2656 (Ch) has provided new insight on what constitutes "genuine and serious" cross-claim for the purposes of securing an injunction to restrain presentation of a winding up petition.

Background

This article explains why the purchase of a shell company should be avoided today and even more so in the future under the new law, and that the formation of a new company is preferable when setting up a business (start-up).

At the end of this article, the possible effects of the revision of the law on legitimate transactions with company shares will also be discussed.

Seeking sound legal advice is therefore worthwhile both when founding a new company and when taking over an operating company.