Introduction
In Sun Electric Power Pte Ltd v RCMA Asia Pte Ltd [2021] SGCA 60, the Singapore Court of Appeal had the opportunity to consider some vital questions relating to insolvency proceedings. In the context of an appeal against a winding-up order, the Court considered whether the company's directors should be entitled to control the appeal, and who should be responsible for the costs of the appeal.
The Supreme Court of The Bahamas has recently provided guidance on the ability and extent to which the fees and expenses of the liquidator may be paid from trust property. Such guidance has emanated from Justice Winder and Justice McKay in two separate decisions relating to Pacifico Global Advisors Limited (in liquidation) (“Pacifico”) delivered within the period of six months[1].
Dutch football club ADO Den Haag has filed for WHOA proceedings after its major shareholder failed to pay €2 million due to the club, leaving it unable to meet its financial obligations.
The decision
In the matter of Western Port holdings Pty Ltd (receivers and managers appointed)(in liq) [2021] NSWSC 232, Deed Administrators who were subsequently appointed Liquidators of Western Port Holdings Pty Ltd (the Company) clawed back over $2 million worth of payments made to the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) whilst the Company was subject to a Deed of Company Arrangement (DOCA).
A Supreme Court in Australia has dismissed an application by a UK company’s moratorium restructuring practitioners for recognition of a UK moratorium and ordered that the company be wound up under Australian law.
The decision provides insights into the interaction between cross-border insolvencies and the winding up in Australia of foreign companies under Australian law.
Introduction
In the matter of Hydrodec Group Plc [2021] NSWSC 755, delivered 24 June 2021, the New South Wales Supreme Court:
This article debunks the myths surrounding court-sanctioned winding-up in Hong Kong and lays out the process clearly, so you know what to expect.
The term “winding-up” refers to the sale of a company’s assets to settle its debts and distribute the surplus (if any) to its shareholders. Once this process is complete, the company is dissolved.
The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Mexico added its voice to the split in judicial authority on whether a lien or similar transfer can be avoided under sections 544, 547, 548 and 549 of the Bankruptcy Code where only the debtor itself may benefit from the avoidance. Judge Thuma in his recent decision in U.S. Glove, Inc. v. Jacobs (In re U.S. Glove, Inc.), AP No. 21-1009, 2021 WL 2405399 (Bankr. D. N.M.
The German Federal Court of Justice was recently asked to decide whether a waiver in favour of company director had been validated by the preliminary insolvency administrator's consent.
Background
Introduction
Though bankruptcy filings are down in 2021, the expiration of the Paycheck Protection Program and reopening of the courts nationwide could lead to a rise in bankruptcy filings with many businesses still struggling to cope with the economic and supply chain aftereffects of the pandemic and consumer purchasing habits. These bankruptcies, in turn, will have an inevitable ripple effect on creditors and other claimants, whose abilities to collect on claims and exercise rights, are significantly restricted by the automatic stay.