When does a company give a ‘preference’ in breach of insolvency legislation? The award-winning corporate attorneys at ParrisWhittaker are highly experienced in advising companies and creditors on corporate insolvency matters when they need timely advice.

An important appeal court ruling on the timing of a decision made to enter into a transaction provides clarity on what may amount to a preference in a creditor’s favour. The UK Court of Appeal has persuasive authority on the courts in The Bahamas and should be noted.

What is a ‘preference’?

This article originally appeared on Law360.

The uptick in bankruptcy cases will mean more work for insolvency professionals who specialize in asset tracing. Some of the most interesting work will arise in cases where companies engaged in significant fraud.

Each bankruptcy cycle has these cases. In 2001, Enron Corp. filed for bankruptcy. In 2008, there was Bernie Madoff. The latest example is FTX Trading Ltd.

What creditor would ever want to be an involuntary bankruptcy petitioner under these statements of facts and law:

According to a recent report, nearly 6,000 construction companies in the UK are in danger of going out of business. In Hong Kong, a major contractor has lost its licence and was removed from the government's registered list of contractors on 16 November 2023, with the company being given only a month to settle five private residential and commercial projects. When construction companies become insolvent, a host of tricky legal and practical issues come into play.

A bleak picture

Der Aufsichtsrat ist ein Kontrollorgan. Er überwacht die Geschäftsführung. Unterlaufen ihm Fehler, haften die Mitglieder des Aufsichtsrats persönlich.

Aufsichtsräte gibt es in deutschen Unternehmen seit über 150 Jahren. Das Gesetz, betreffend die Kommanditgesellschaften auf Aktien und die Aktiengesellschaften vom 11. Juni 1870 bestimmte:

On 1 November, the Supreme Court issued its judgment in R (on the application of Palmer) v Northern Derbyshire Magistrates Court and Another.

Background

The Bankruptcy Code does not explicitly authorize the equitable remedy of "substantive consolidation"—i.e., treating the assets and liabilities of two or more related entities as if they belonged to a single, consolidated bankruptcy estate. However, it is well recognized that a bankruptcy court has the authority to order such relief under appropriate circumstances in the exercise of its broad equitable powers when each of the original entities are already debtors subject to the court's jurisdiction.

In the recent case of Dilip B. Jiwrajka v. Union of India (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1281 of 2021), the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court (the “SC”) upheld the constitutionality of Sections 95 to 100 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”).

The pilot measure for mutual recognition and assistance of insolvency proceedings between the courts of three pilot areas in Mainland China and Hong Kong was agreed in mid-2021, which is known as the Cooperation Mechanism.

Since then, liquidators in Hong Kong have had a more certain and structured route to seek, through Hong Kong Court, recognition and assistance from the designated Mainland courts in the three pilot areas including Shanghai, Shenzhen and Xiamen.

Key Takeaways

A Section 363 sale is a sale of a company's assets pursuant to Section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code. The Bankruptcy Court will approve a 363 sale if the debtor can demonstrate a "substantial business justification" for the sale.

Key Issues

In general, Section 363 bankruptcy sales proceed as follows: