Het zijn rare tijden. Thuiswerken is de norm geworden. Geen potjes tafeltennis met collega’s, geen gespreken bij het koffieapparaat en een virtuele kennissessie of virtuele vrijdagmiddagborrel is het toch net niet. Gelukkig zijn er ook dingen die wel hetzelfde zijn gebleven: de bestuurdersaansprakelijkheidsupdates van Ploum bij aanvang van een nieuw kwartaal.
This week’s TGIF looks at a recent case where the Federal Court ordered the reinstatement of two companies to allow proceedings to be commenced against the liquidator of those companies for alleged breaches of duty (Lee v Parker [2020] FCA 1453).
Key takeaways
Introduction
It is trite law that where a petition debt is disputed in good faith and on substantial grounds, the ordinary practice of the Court is to dismiss or strike out the winding up petition. However, this principle is more easily applied in theory than in practice. As a result, the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands has observed recently that "It is remarkable how much case law has been generated in relation to a legal test which has essentially been settled for many years" (Re Sky Solar Holdings Ltd).
In a recent case Sagufa Ahmed & ors. V. Upper Assam Plywood Products Pvt. Ltd. & ors.[1], the Three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice S.A.
Die für Geschäftspartner (Gläubiger) eines bankrotten Kaufmanns oder Unternehmens (Schuldner) bereits an sich schlechte Situation wird durch das Recht des Insolvenzverwalters zur Insolvenzanfechtung nach §§ 129 ff InsO vielfach erst richtig ärgerlich. Insolvenzanfechtung bedeutet, dass derjenige, der vorinsolvenzlich noch Leistungen oder auch nur Sicherheiten vom Schuldner erhalten hat, gezwungen sein kann, diese zur Befriedigung der Gläubigergesamtheit wieder herausgeben zu müssen.
Wenn Insolvenz droht
Part I -- Introduction
Your former employee sues you, but your employee-plaintiff filed for bankruptcy. You diligently research the bankruptcy filings and discover the employee did not disclose the lawsuit against you in those filings, which are sworn to under oath. You might have a winner to get out of the case, right? Well, it is not quite that simple, according to a recent ruling in Georgia.
It seems to be a common misunderstanding, even among lawyers who are not bankruptcy lawyers, that litigation in federal bankruptcy court consists largely or even exclusively of disputes about the avoidance of transactions as preferential or fraudulent, the allowance of claims and the confirmation of plans of reorganization. However, with a jurisdictional reach that encompasses “all civil proceedings . . .
