Making an out of hours qualifying floating charge holder (“QFCH”) appointment can be problematic due to the procedural requirements set out in Rule 3.20 of the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016 (the “Rules”).
On November 6, 2023, WeWork Inc. and several hundred of its affiliates filed voluntary chapter 11 cases in the US Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey. According to a press release issued simultaneously with the filings, WeWork also intends to file recognition proceedings in Canada under Part IV of the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act. The press release also states that WeWork’s locations outside of the United States and Canada are not part of the reorganization process.
The Supreme Court has provided welcome clarity for insolvency practitioners in confirming that administrators of a company appointed pursuant to the Insolvency Act 1986 ("IA 1986") will not be criminally liable for a failure by the company to comply with redundancy notification requirements.
The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal has confirmed that the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Orphan Well Association v. Grant Thornton Ltd., 2019 SCC 5 [Redwater], applies in Saskatchewan. The Court of Appeal also affirmed that orders made in failed proceedings in Alberta under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCCA) did not have effect in subsequent receivership proceedings in Saskatchewan.
On 31 October, 2023, in Sanjay Kumar Agarwal v State Tax Officer 1, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1406, the Supreme Court of India (SC) in the exercise of its powers of review under Article 137 of the Constitution of India, (Rainbow Review) affirmed the view expressed by another bench of the SC in State Tax Officer (I) v. Rainbow Papers Limited 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1162 (Rainbow Judgment) that may have far reaching effects on the treatment of dues to the Government or governmental authorities in insolvency resolution proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC).
The Supreme Court has handed down a judgment which will be greeted with a collective sigh of relief from the insolvency world. In R (on the application of Palmer) v Northern Derbyshire Magistrates Court [2023] UKSC 38, the Supreme Court ruled that an administrator of a company is not an “officer” of that company.
In an application filed by Vishram Narayan Panchpor, resolution professional of Blue Frog Media Private Limited (“Corporate Debtor”) in the matter of M/s Blue Frog Media Private Limited1 for approval of a resolution plan, the Mumbai bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT Mumbai”) ruled that the object of Section 29A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) requires a resolution professional to conduct adequate due diligence on a prospective resolution applicant and its related parti
In Dubai civil cases, if someone proves they cannot pay what the court ordered, they will normally avoid facing an arrest warrant, the emirate's highest judicial body has said.
Creditors need to demonstrate that the person who owes the money has sufficient funds to pay the debt before the court can issue an arrest warrant for unpaid dues.
The Supreme Court has held that the ‘doctrine of election’, stemming out of the law of evidence that bars prosecution of the same right in two different fora based on the same cause of action, cannot be applied to prevent a financial creditor from approaching the adjudicating authority for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against a corporate debtor.
While the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) provides for insolvency resolution and liquidation of ‘corporate persons’, it excludes ‘financial service provider’ (“FSP(s)”) from the said provision.