In the case of Dilip B Jiwrajka v Union of India & Ors, a 3 (three) judge bench of the Supreme Court of India (“SupremeCourt”) has upheld the constitutional validity of Sections 95 to 100 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”).
Background
Amid the current market uncertainties, distressed asset sales are likely to rise. International investors are looking for efficient solutions, preferably ones that reflect solutions in their home jurisdictions. One popular mechanism is the use of pre-pack sales. A pre-pack sale manages the adverse impact of insolvency proceedings on the distressed company’s business, while reducing the time and cost of such proceedings, and offering greater asset realisation to be distributed among creditors.
In R (on the application of Palmer) v Northern Derbyshire Magistrates' Court [2023] UKSC 38, the Supreme Court has ruled that an administrator appointed under the Insolvency Act 1986 is not an "officer" of the company.
This case considered this issue within the meaning of section 194 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (the TULRCA). As a result of the Supreme Court's decision, administrators will not be exposed to potential criminal liability for failing to notify the Secretary of State of collective redundancies.
If you have ever filed a claim in a bankruptcy case, you have also probably received an offer from a third-party claims purchaser to purchase your claim. Before deciding to sell the claim, there are pros and cons that must be carefully considered.
Key Issues
There are several advantages to selling your claim:
One of the primary goals of bankruptcy law is to provide debtors with a fresh start by imposing an automatic stay and allowing for claims of reorganizing debtors to be discharged. In environmental law, a primary goal is to ensure that the “polluter pays” for environmental harms. These two goals collide when an entity with environmental liabilities enters bankruptcy. The result is often outcomes that are the exception, rather than the rule, with many unsettled areas of law that can be dealt with by bankruptcy courts in varying ways.
一、“集中管辖”概述
《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》（下称“《民事诉讼法》”）中，对于“集中管辖”并无明确的规定，而在民事诉讼的司法实践中，存在许多被称为“集中管辖”的做法。实务中，“集中管辖”泛指将某类案件，依照《民事诉讼法》及其他法律法规的相关规定，以司法解释或者通知的形式，集中由某类法院或某个法院管辖的情形。
概括来说，“集中管辖”共分为如下三种情形：
（1）某类法院集中管辖某类案件，如依据《中华人民共和国企业破产法》（下称“《企业破产法》”）第二十一条的规定，破产案件中涉债务人的诉讼案件集中由受理破产申请的人民法院管辖，或者依据《全国法院审理债券纠纷案件座谈会纪要》（以下简称“《债券会议纪要》”）第十条的规定，以发行人或者增信机构为被告提起的要求依约偿付债券本息或者履行增信义务的合同纠纷案件，由发行人住所地人民法院管辖；
（2）某个法院集中管辖某一类型化案件，如各地金融法院集中管辖当地金融案件、各地知识产权法院集中管辖当地知识产权案件；
Recent headlines have starkly illuminated the headwinds facing health care providers struggling to recover from a host of financial pressures. Many providers have resorted to filing for bankruptcy protection as a way, among other things, to right-size their balance sheets or effect a sale of their assets or businesses.
The Court of Cassation has considered whether company insolvency proceedings may be extended to a managing director and shareholder who has made payments to himself from the company's bank account.
Background
The High Court has reaffirmed the test to be applied in considering an application to dismiss a bankruptcy summons grounded on a judgment.
The bankruptcy process in Ireland involves multiple steps and the debtor can seek to bring it to a halt at each step. Debtors often seek to rerun effectively the same arguments at each step, ignoring previous findings by the courts. One such step is an application to dismiss a bankruptcy summons.
Welcome to our monthly newsletter, with a summary of the latest news and developments in UK employment law.
In this issue
- Case law updates
- Legislative developments
- Other news
- New guidance
- Consultations
Recent publications