In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, legislation was introduced during 2020 to prevent creditors filing statutory demands and winding up petitions on the basis of their debtor's inability to pay its debts, unless it could be shown that non-payment was not a result of the pandemic. These temporary measures had been extended a number of times during the pandemic as businesses continued to suffer the effects of multiple lockdowns and trading restrictions, but are now gradually being phased out.

Amirbeaggi as trustee of the bankrupt estate of Hanna v Hanna [2021] FCA 988

Background:

This past week the Federal Court handed down an interesting bankruptcy decision concerning the late lodgement of cross-claims. The respondent in this matter on two separate occasions failed to serve a cross-claim within the allotted time. This was despite being granted an extension. The question for the court was whether should be granted to permit the applicant to serve the cross-claim notwithstanding these delays.

A recent NSWSC decision, In the matter of Sails Corp Pty Ltd [2021], confirmed the problematic task of rebutting a presumption of insolvency. In this matter, the defendant’s presumed insolvency arose from an unsatisfied Creditor’s Statutory Demand. Therefore, the defendant bore the onus of rebutting this presumption and establishing solvency.

Establishing Solvency:

Establishing solvency requires more than a bald assertion.

1 Contact Information If you have any questions concerning this update, please contact: Naomi Moore Partner [email protected] Hong Kong +852 3694.3050 Abid Qureshi Partner [email protected] New York +1 212.872.8027 Liz Osborne Partner

はじめに

ケイマン諸島と香港の裁判所は、この数ヶ月、ケイマン諸島の会社を再編することを目的とするクロスボーダーの申立てについて、関連する法域における裁判所がどのようにこれを処理するのか実用的な方向性を示しました。これは、国際礼譲および修正された普遍主義の原則に沿ったものです。

裁判所のスタート地点

手続が一つ以上のコモンローの法域で開始されたが、清算人の任命が未了の場合、裁判所が修正された普遍主義を適用するためのスタート地点は、倒産の主手続の役割を担うのはどの法域がより適当かということを考えることでしょう。最近の香港およびケイマン諸島の両地域の裁判例では、長年の先例に沿いながら、通常この法域とは会社の設立地であることを確認しました。なぜならば投資家やサービス・プロバイダーおよび債権者が通常関係しているからであり、とりわけ、会社の登録された営業所であったり、その取締役会の義務やその定款を規定する法律の地であるからです。

With the Act on the Temporary Suspension of the Insolvency Filing Obligation Due to Heavy Rainfall and Floods in July 2021 (Gesetz zur vorübergehenden Aussetzung der Insolvenzantragspflicht wegen Starkregenfällen und Hochwassern im Juli 2021), which is part of the Reconstruction Assistance Act 2021 (Aufbauhilfegesetzes 2021), the German Federal Parliament and the German Federal Council have decided to suspend the obligation to file for insolvency retroactively as of 10 July 2021.

The Court of Appeal has overturned a decision of the High Court on whether immunity from suit, generally afforded to participants in court proceedings, extends to an examinee during an examination conducted under section 236 of the Insolvency Act 1986 ("Section 236").

This week’s TGIF considers the recent ruling of the Federal Court of Australia in Tuscan Capital Partners Pty Ltd v Trading Australia Pty Ltd (in liq)[2021] FCA 1061, where a liquidator’s decision to accept a ‘proof of debt’ was successfully challenged due to a lack of evidence that

On July 26, 2021, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (the “District Court”) affirmed the Delaware bankruptcy court’s order (the “Confirmation Order”) confirming the chapter 11 liquidation plan (the “Plan”) of Exide Holdings, Inc.

The Supreme Court of Canada’s recent decision in Canada v.Canada North Group Inc.[1] provided much needed clarity regarding the order of priority for unremitted source deductions in restructuring proceedings.