TO BE OR NOT TO BE (SOLVENT) - A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF SINGAPORE, UK, US, AND AUSTRALIA ON RECOGNISING FOREIGN PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE UNCITRAL MODEL LAW PIERRE DZAKPASU, ANNE JESUDASON, FLORENCE LI The recent case of Ascentra Holdings, Inc v. SPGK Pte Ltd [2023] SGCA 32 (Ascentra) has drawn a line in the sand in the Singapore court's interpretation of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency (UNCITRAL Model Law), as incorporated in the Third Schedule of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 (IRDA) to create the Singapore Model Law.

Die Anforderungen der Finanzverwaltung an die Steuerfreiheit von unternehmensbezogenen Sanierungen steigen in der Praxis.

The Court of Civil Appeal (CCA) delivered an interesting judgment on the adequacy of affidavit evidence when making a bankruptcy order. The CCA, acting solely on the basis of affidavit evidence, upheld an order of the Bankruptcy Court adjudging the appellant (Mr Balgobin) bankrupt pursuant to Section 8 of the Insolvency Act. The issues raised on appeal by the Appellant and which the CCA had to determine on were:

The Supreme Court of Gibraltar has confirmed that the court does not have the power to extend the time for the filing of an application to set aside a statutory demand issued under the Insolvency Act 2011.

A party that claims it is owned monies (the amount must be more than £750) is entitled to issue a statutory demand against the debtor. If the debtor does not apply to the court to set aside the demand within 21 days of being served, the court has no power to extend the time for doing so.

In the recent decision of Foo Kian Beng v OP3 International Pte Ltd (in liquidation) [2024] SGCA 10 (dated 27 March 2024), the Singapore Court of Appeal upheld a director’s breach of duty by authorising the payment of a dividend and the repayment of a loan to himself. The decision, considering Sequana, sheds further important light on the directors’ duty to consider or act in the interest of the company’s creditors, coined as “creditor duty”.

The Facts – Briefly Stated

Legal proceedings need to be filed before the end of any relevant limitation period, otherwise they will be time-barred — often irreparably. There are various reasons why a person may delay commencing proceedings – for example, they may be waiting on litigation funding before prosecuting their claim or need more time to gather evidence in order to decide whether to proceed.

1. Introducción

En la edición de este mes de marzo destacamos:

La Sentencia de la Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona de 20 de diciembre de 2023 que considera irrescindible la hipoteca constituida por la concursada a favor de la AEAT incluso cuando lo que se garantiza es la deuda de un tercero, y no la propia.

ICC Judge Greenwood’s judgment in Kendall & Anor v Ball & Anor (Re Sherwood Oak Homes Ltd – Sherwood Oak Holdings Ltd) [2024] EWHC 746 (Ch) arises out of an application by the administrators of Sherwood Oak Homes Ltd and Sherwood Oak Holdings Ltd under para 63 Sch B1 Insolvency Act 1986 and/or s 234 Insolvency Act for a declaration that land forming part of a development site in Mansfield Woodhouse was held on resulting and/or constructive trust for the benefit of Homes or Holdings and an order for its transfer.

Preferences are a common issue in bankruptcy proceedings. A general overview of preferences in bankruptcy can be found here.

The Bankruptcy Code provides several affirmative defenses to assist creditors in mitigating or eliminating their preference exposure. We have previously addressed the new value defense2 and the ordinary course of business defense3. This article will briefly address another common affirmative defense: the contemporaneous exchange defense.

As seen in the recent proliferation of bankruptcy cases seeking a structured dismissal or conversion after a successful sale, debtors constantly seek creative and efficient ways to wind up a case, including through a traditional plan of liquidation. Yet, as discussed below, debtors must ensure that any proposed voting procedures for a plan comply with section 1126 of the Bankruptcy Code, or are at least supported by, or supportable with, prior precedent.