Thailand’s Official Receiver recently issued an important announcement relevant to all existing or potential creditors of Thai Airways International Public Company Limited (“Thai Airways International”). The announcement details the Central Bankruptcy Court’s Order for rehabilitation of Thai Airways International and was published in the Royal Gazette on October 2, 2020.

One of the temporary measures that was not extended was the disapplication of the wrongful trading rules of section 214 of the Insolvency Act 1986 as regards the personal liability of company directors. The discontinuation of the temporary protection has been criticised by business and most recently by the Institute of Directors (IoD) which commented that "Failing to extend the suspension of wrongful trading rules was a mistake. Without this protection, the pressure is on directors to simply shut up shop when faced with difficulty". Is that concern justified?

The Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala comprising of Chief Justice S Manikumar and Justice Shaji P Chaly in Sulochana Gupta and another v. RBG Enterprises Pvt Ltd and others, has recently ruled that the Writ Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 cannot be invoked to challenge an order passed by National Company Law Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “NCLT”).

In a victory for minority noteholders opposing an out-of-court restructuring of their distressed issuer, New York's highest court ruled last week that a holder's right to receive or sue for payment on its notes survived an exercise of statutory remedies by the trustee, conducted at the direction of a noteholder majority, that would have cancelled the holder's notes without its consent and replaced them with equity securities.

Historically, an assignment of claims pursuant to s. 38 of Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (the “BIA”)[1] has only been used in the context of an assignment in bankruptcy. For instance, the use of s.

OVERVIEW

This article was first published in International Corporate Rescue by Chase Cambria

In this article we will cover the notice requirements for an out of court administration appointment by a company or its directors, and look at the recent case of Re Tokenhouse VB Ltd (Formerly VAT Bridge 7 Ltd) [2020] EWHC 3171 (Ch).

The notice requirements

As predicted in Holland & Knight's Energy and Natural Resources Blog post on March 16, 2020, "Midstream Providers Can Prepare for the Next Wave of Restructurings," the dual impact of a COVID-19 demand slump and market pricing pressures would lead to a host of bankruptcy filings by exploration and production (E&P) companies.

Most companies now hold large volumes of personal data – it is almost inevitable due to the interplay between technology and business. This includes companies that become insolvent, but what obligations does a liquidator have in relation to the personal data held by a company?

There are several ways in which property owners can advantageously use the Bankruptcy Code to effectuate strategic dispositions of assets. But the bankruptcy process can be fraught with uncertainty that can upend the best laid plans. The matter of In re Wansdown Properties Corp. N.V., No. 19-13223 (SMB), 2020 WL 5887542 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Oct. 5, 2020) provides an instructive and cautionary example.