This case is significant as it involved the appointment of an Examiner to Norwegian Air Shuttle ASA (NAS) a company incorporated in Norway with its centre of main interests in Norway rather than Ireland.
The Norwegian Air Group comprised 65 companies and the protection of the Court was sought in respect of 5 Irish incorporated companies (the Petitioners) and NAS the ultimate parent company in the Group.
Introduction
In dismissing Darty Holdings SAS’ (“Darty”) appeal in a recent decision[1], Miles J. has confirmed that an English court will look at the actual relationship between the parties involved, rather than the wider context, when considering whether those parties are connected. This will be the case even where the wider context consists of a transaction that will, immediately following the relevant transaction, sever that relationship.
The ruling confirmed that Section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 has extensive international reach, and does not require a transaction at an undervalue to leave the debtor with insufficient assets.
Background
Earlier this month, judgments were handed down in the landlord challenges to two Company Voluntary Arrangements ("CVAs"), New Look and Regis. The challenge to the New Look CVA was unsuccessful, although permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal has been given. Whilst the Regis challenge lead to the revocation of the CVA, the majority of the landlords' arguments failed. These judgments provide important guidance on the use of landlord CVAs and their terms.
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 has restructured the economy by promoting its objectives namely the maximization of value of assets, promotion of entrepreneurship, availability of credit and balancing the interests of the stakeholders. Since the commencement and effect of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) on 28 May 2016, the Adjudicating Authorities have upheld the objectives of IBC through a catena of judgements. One such case is the matter concerning Indian Overseas Bank v. RCM Infrastructure Ltd. and Ors. [Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.
This week’s TGIF considers David Djordjevich v Richard Trygve Rohrt in his capacity as liquidator of ACN 091 518 302 Pty Ltd (in liq) ACN 091 518 302 [2021] VSC 178, a Victorian Supreme Court decision that focuses on the circumstances in which a court will order an inquiry into the conduct of a liquidator and the interests that such an inquiry is intended to serve.
Key takeaways
On 14 May 2021, the Supreme People’s Court of the People’s Republic of China (“SPC”) and the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (“HKSAR”) signed the Record of Meeting on Mutual Recognition of and Assistance to Bankruptcy (Insolvency) Proceedings between the Courts of the Mainland and of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (“Record of Meeting”).
On May 21, 2021, the Apex Court of India, in the case of Lalit Kumar Jain vs. Union of India & Ors.1, upheld the validity of the Centre’s notification dated November 15, 2019, allowing banks to proceed against personal guarantors for recovery of loans given to a company under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) (“Notification”).
On 14 May 2021, the Secretary for Justice, Ms Teresa Cheng, SC, and Vice-president of the Supreme People's Court (SPC), Mr Yang Wanming, signed a record of meeting concerning mutual recognition of and assistance in relation to insolvency proceedings between the courts of the Mainland and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR).