In a recent order issued by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT“) in the case of Sushil Ansal Vs. Ashok Tripathi1, the NCLAT has held that a decree-holder cannot be treated as a financial creditor for the purpose of triggering insolvency proceedings against a company.
COVID-19 Key Developments __ Top Story | COVID-19:Temporary amendments to insolvency laws extended to 31 December 2020 On 7 September The Treasurer and the Attorney General issued a joint statement announcing that the government plans to extend temporary insolvency and bankruptcy protections for businesses impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic until 31 December 2020. MinterEllison's Michael Hughes has released an article providing an expert summary of the changes. This can be accessed on our website here.
Earlier this year, the Ontario Court of Appeal released its decision in Urbancorp Cumberland 2 GP Inc. (Re)[PDF], which clarifies the scope and effectiveness of a section 9(1) vendor’s trust under the Ontario Construction Lien Act in insolvency proceedings.
As we head towards the last part of 2020 in the midst of a recession and some of the most challenging business conditions many have ever faced, it is worthwhile considering the aftermath of the 2008 global financial crisis. Then, in the real estate funds space, there was a shift away from pooled investments through funds and an uptick in real estate joint ventures, as investors sought to take greater control over their investments.
The Bottom Line
We will soon enter a phase of the Covid19 era when more and more companies will be forced to apply for protection from their creditors under the Examinership provisions of the Companies Act, 2014. Security as always will be a key consideration for the stakeholders in this restructuring process. Fixed and floating charges are almost always well protected but what about personal or corporate guarantees?
The legislation
The legislation is very specific regarding guarantees.
The English Supreme Court has handed down its long-awaited judgment in Sevilleja v Marex Financial Ltd. The key issue the case has dealt with is the scope of the reflective loss principle in English law. This might not mean much to the average person, but the decision is potentially ground-breaking for creditors of companies seeking justice. This short article explains why.
The reflective loss principle
Insolvency Case Update: Paulus Tannos v Heince Tombak Simanjuntak and others [2020] SGCA 85
In split decision, Singapore Court of Appeal refuses recognition of Indonesian bankruptcy orders for breach of natural justice
Significant holdings:-
a. The question of whether there has been a breach of natural justice in a foreign court is one which the Singapore court alone can decide.
The COVID-19 pandemic has caused unparalleled disruption to the judiciary, which has been presented with logistical hurdles as well as acute legal issues to tackle.
This article summarises some notable recent caselaw concerning the fallout from the pandemic. Broadly, the judiciary has adopted a strict but fair approach when parties have sought leniency due to the impact of COVID-19. Courts have not looked kindly on those who are seen to be unfairly capitalising on the disruption but, where merited, parties have been granted clemency.
The English High Court in Telnic Ltd v Knipp Medien Und Kommunikation GmbH [2020] EWHC 2075 (Ch) has confirmed that the court has discretion to restrain a winding-up petition against debtor's when the debt is governed by an arbitration agreement.
Knipp Medien Und Kommunikation GmbH (Knipp) appealed against an order to stay its winding-up petition against Telnic Limited (Telnic). Telnic also brought a cross-appeal seeking orders that Knipp's petition be dismissed rather than stayed.