The Court of Appeal has handed down judgment in a case concerning the Core VCT PLC companies (In Members Voluntary Liquidation) [2020] EWCA Civ 1207. The case concerns an order made to restore three dissolved companies after they went through a solvent liquidation process (ie no creditors still owed money), putting them back into solvent liquidation and appointing liquidators to investigate not only the affairs of the company but also the conduct of the ex-liquidators. The restoration application was made without notice to the ex-liquidators or members.
We at 1CL admire and encourage commitment to a cause, but even we blanched this week when we read of the determination of a 20 year old Slovenian woman, Julija Adlesic, who cut off her own hand with a circular saw in order to claim a €1,000,000 insurance payout. We can only imagine how irritated she must have been when police retrieved the hand and doctors were able to reattach it. All too predictably, the story ended in tears, when she was sentenced to a two year custodial sentence for attempted insurance fraud.
In the first article of our Business Rehabilitation Spotlight Series, we provided an overview of the anatomy of a typical business rehabilitation in Thailand where we focused on the key considerations for Thai and Foreign Creditors.
This week’s TGIF looks at a decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales where a liquidator sought to distribute a surplus of $8.7 million despite one of the shareholders who was potentially entitled to a portion of the surplus being bankrupt and a debtor of the company.
Key takeaways
Over the summer, we wrote about why health care companies may want to consider buying assets out of bankruptcy, taking advantage of the Bankruptcy Code Section 363 sale process (a “363 Sale”). We are back with our second post, to provide more detail to the process and discuss some pros and cons of 363 Sales.
Let’s say you’re a hemp/CBD business (that also services the cannabis industry in a limited capacity) and COVID-19 has hit you. Hard. You’ve stretched your resources as far as you can, but you’re still on the ropes financially.
This post concerns computation of time under Bankruptcy Rule 9006. The specific issue addressed is whether a bankruptcy court — when computing a filing deadline — should count a day when its clerk’s office is closed, even if the electronic filing system is available. In a recent case, a federal district judge explained why in his view the day shouldn’t be counted. Labbadia v. Martin (In re Martin), No. 3:20-cv-939, 2020 WL 5300932, (SRU) (D. Conn. Sept. 4, 2020).
Singapore confirms further widening of third-party funding options
The COVID-19 pandemic has forced many hospitality professionals and their clients to confront bankruptcy, insolvency, and loan workout issues for the first time since the Great Recession. Chapter 11 presents a host of unique issues for hotels and other hospitality businesses. This article highlights a few key chapter 11 bankruptcy concepts for non-bankruptcy lawyers and other industry professionals to consider as they advise their distressed clients in the coronavirus environment.
In UDA Land Sdn Bhd v Puncak Sepakat Sdn Bhd [2020] MLJU 892, the High Court was required to determine whether an award should be set aside because the sole arbitrator (“Arbitrator”) wrongly concluded that it had no jurisdiction to determine a counterclaim and insolvency set-off raised in the arbitration. The High Court set aside the award on the basis that the Arbitrator made an error of law in finding that it had no jurisdiction to hear the counterclaim and set-off.
Background