Here’s a curious thing:
- an advisory opinion from a U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on an issue for which there is no controversy and that is mostly academic.
That’s exactly what we have in In re Whittaker Clark & Daniels, Inc., Case Nos. 24-2210 & 24-2211 (3rd Cir., decided September 10, 2025)(see first concurring opinion).##
No Controversy
This article first appeared in Volume 22, Issue 6 of International Corporate Rescue.
Synopsis
It is a recurring practical issue in insolvency proceedings how the creditor may prove that an invoice was duly communicated to the debtor. In a recent decision, the Hungarian court examined if screenshots taken from an electronic invoicing system suffice to prove delivery and awareness of an invoice, in the absence of traditional postal proof. In our article we analyse the decision.
1. Facts of the case
Въведение
This article examines the recent decision in Maher & Anor v Investalet Ltd & Anor.
Section 234 Insolvency Act 1986 provides:
“(2) Where any person has in his possession or control any property, books, papers or records to which the company appears to be entitled, the court may require that person forthwith (or within such period as the court may direct) to pay, deliver, convey, surrender or transfer the property, books, papers or records to the office-holder.”
In Re Petrofac Ltd [2025] EWHC 2887 (Ch), the English High Court made an administration order in relation to a Jersey-incorporated company even though its registered office was not in England which is the starting point for determining COMI and therefore the Court’s jurisdiction to make such an order.
Background