In LCM Operations Pty Ltd, in the matter of 316 Group Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) [2021] FCA 324, the Federal Court considered whether a third party who has been assigned a company’s claim by a liquidator breached the Harman undertaking with respect to documents obtained through public examinations.

What happened?

Президиум Верховного Суда Российской Федерации за первое полугодие 2021 г. утвердил два Обзора судебной практики № 1 и 2. Обзоры содержат ряд важных позиций, на которые стоит обратить внимание руководителям компаний, а также юридическим службам компаний.

1. Исключение компании из Единого государственного реестра юридических лиц (ЕГРЮЛ)

The Federal Labour Court (Bundesarbeitsgericht – BAG) has ruled on 18 May 2021 (docket number 3 AZR 317/20) that in the case of the PSV’s assertion of claims against the insolvency administrator of an insolvent company, it is not the balance sheet interest rate used for the calculation of the pension provisions that is applicable, but the standard statutory interest rate according to section 246 German Civil Code (BGB). Only this interest rate is decisive for the calculation of the amount of claims.

Facts / Background:

The High Court has ruled that a claim for a declaration regarding a borrower’s obligations to provide information under a facility agreement was not a claim which itself derived from borrower’s French insolvency proceedings for the purposes of Article 6(1) of the Recast European Insolvency Regulation (EU) 2015/848 (the “Recast Insolvency Regulation”).

In its August 5th, 2021 VeroBlue Farms decision,[1] the Eighth Circuit lent its voice to a growing body of criticism of the equitable mootness doctrine contending that its use to bar challenges to confirmed reorganization plans should be circumscribed.

I have written approximately 130 Helix Legal articles where I have focused on conveying information to readers concisely, factually and always looking to be positive.

I do not like ‘shock and awe’ articles where the clear intent is to scare people into doing something. There are much better ways to engage with people.

However, on the other hand, I have never shied away from raising awareness on significant industry issues that are confronting, and indeed very uncomfortable to talk about.

This newsletter covers key updates about developments in the Insolvency Law during the month of July 2021.

We have summarized the key judgments passed by the Supreme Court of India (SC), National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) and the National Company Law Tribunals (NCLT). Please see below the summary of the relevant regulatory developments.

1) DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY OPERATIONAL CREDITOR BASED ON INVOICES CAN BE ISSUED IN FORM-3 INSTEAD OF FORM-4.

Many describe the United States as Canada's most important trade partner. Cross-border insolvency proceedings between the two jurisdictions are frequent and the recognition by one country's court of the other's bankruptcy orders is an important tool in facilitating the restructuring of companies with operations that spread across North America. A recent decision from the Ontario Court of Appeal (leave to appeal of which was denied by the Supreme Court of Canada) invites us to reflect on the delicate balance between comity for foreign orders and Canada's sovereignty over domestic laws.

In brief

With the courts about to consider a significant and long standing controversy in the law of unfair preferences, suppliers to financially distressed companies, and liquidators, should be aware that there have been recent significant shifts in the law about getting paid in hard times.

When the Petitioner issued the petition to wind up the Company on 12 January 2021, the Company was already subject to another winding up petition in HCCW 410/2019 and the Petitioner was aware of the first petition. The Court reiterated that a creditor should not issue a petition if a petition has already been issued against the relevant debtor company. The Petitioner argued that there are exceptional circumstances, which justified the second petition: Re China Greenfresh Group Co Ltd [2021] HKCFI 36. It was said that the progress of the first petition was dilatory.