Mareva orders, also known as freezing orders, may be granted when there is a risk that a defendant might move its assets out of reach of the court’s jurisdiction. Mareva can orders freeze assets owned directly or indirectly by the defendants. Oftentimes a defendant subject to a freezing order has other creditors seeking repayment. Can a creditor enforce its claim against the frozen assets? Yes, but the creditor must come to the court with clean hands and should not make loans to the defendant if it has notice of the order.
We have previouslyblogged about the section 546(e) defense to a trustee’s avoidance powers under the Bankruptcy Code. A trustee has broad powers to set aside certain transfers made by debtors before bankruptcy. See 11 U.S.C. §§ 544, 547, 548.
In 2019, Congress enacted the Small Business Reorganization Act, which created subchapter V within chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. Congress’ intent was to create a more cost-efficient and streamlined restructuring process for small businesses by modifying certain provisions of chapter 11 for debtors with claims below a specific debt cap. In particular, because creditors typically have smaller claims against these small businesses, the new subchapter takes into account the likelihood that there will be no or minimal meaningful creditor participation.
In early February, a Delaware bankruptcy judge set new precedent by granting a creditors’ committee derivative standing to pursue breach of fiduciary duty claims against a Delaware LLC’s members and officers. At least three prior Delaware Bankruptcy Court decisions had held that creditors were barred from pursuing such derivative claims by operation of Delaware state law, specifically under the Delaware Limited Liability Company Act (the “DLLCA”).
In In re Hal Luftig Company, Inc., the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Judge Denise L. Cote), denied confirmation of a Subchapter V plan of reorganization that contained a nonconsensual release of a non-debtor party.
Background
It is being reported that the Latvian State Security Service (the VDD) has discontinued a criminal investigation started in November 2023 into the sale of a helicopter by a company indirectly co-owned by the designated person Petr Aven .
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”) in Anjani Kumar Prashar v. Manab Datta & Ors, Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.
Against the backdrop of recent judicial precedent, this article delves into the need for a group insolvency framework in India, and analyses the report published by the CBIRC in 2021.
Globalisation has led to a significant increase in the number of enterprises which comprise of several closely connected entities that may operate as a single economic unit. As a consequence, difficulties may arise when 1 or more entities in that single economic unit become insolvent as the inability of 1 entity to pay its debts may impact stakeholders in another entity within the group.
引言
近期，香港高等法院正式颁布针对一家大型港股公司（“港股公司”）的清盘令并委任清盘人。这宗债项涉及约数十亿美元的清盘呈请终于落下帷幕，也成为香港有史以来涉及金额最大的清盘案件之一。不少客户均希望了解，香港法下这类清盘对债权人利益及权利之影响。我们将持续推出系列文章，为大家介绍有关内容。
案情简介
根据香港公司清盘法律规定，公司任何一位债权人、股东或公司本身均可通过向高等法院提交清盘呈请书发起针对该公司的强制清盘。就该案而言，数月前港股公司的一债权人入禀香港高等法院，对港股公司提起清盘呈请（“呈请”）。该清盘呈请提出后，历经多次聆讯及延期申请，香港高等法院最终针对港股公司颁布了清盘令。
债权人对清盘债务人的行动
一旦公司进入强制清盘程序，根据香港公司清盘法律规定，所有针对该公司的诉讼程序均会自动中止。该规定目的在于确保清盘程序的有序进行，公司资产不会被用于提起或辩护任何法律程序，以保护公司财产和债权人利益。
Following a series of important decisions in England and across Europe, it is now beyond doubt that court-based restructuring processes should be approached from the outset as pieces of litigation.
We have seen increasingly sophisticated challenges to restructurings, which the courts are willing to accommodate. In appropriate cases, the courts have also refused to sanction restructurings.