The Bankruptcy Protector

INTRODUCTION

今回のニュースレターでは、2021 年 7月の破産倒産法関連の主なアップデートについて取り扱っていま す。最高裁判所（＝SC）、会社法上訴審判所（＝NCLAT）、会社法審判所（＝NCLT）の各裁判所におい て下された重要な判決についてまとめました。

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

Matter: Tudor India Pvt. Ltd. v. Servotech Power Systems Ltd.

Order dated: 02 July 2021.

Summary:

On July 28, 2021, the Supreme Court of Canada (the "SCC") released its decision in Canada v Canada North Group Inc.^[1] (2021 SCC 30) confirming that court-ordered super-priority charges ("Priming Charges") granted pursuant to the Companies' Creditors Arrang

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)

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.

In today's global economy, cross-border structures, frequently including an offshore entity, have become familiar to office holders around the world. 

However, the territorial limits of a court’s powers can mean that such structures present obstacles with which office holders attempting to conduct an orderly and efficient winding up of a debtor's affairs need to familiarise themselves.

The principle of modified universalism mandates that, within the constraints of public policy, courts should co-operate across jurisdictions.