Introduction
When a company enters financial trouble, the Singapore restructuring and insolvency framework provides a number of avenues through which the rights of the company's creditors may be addressed. Amongst these avenues, receivers may be appointed pursuant to an instrument to enforce a secured creditor's rights. Judicial managers may also be appointed by the Court to manage the business and assets of the company.
Where a commercial property is sold by a receiver or insolvency practitioner (IP), VAT must be charged on the sale if the owner had exercised and properly notified an option to tax (OTT) in respect of the property. The IP acting on behalf of the seller needs to establish whether an OTT has been made and notified so that VAT is charged , if needed. This can be difficult if company records are in disarray, directors of the insolvent company are non-cooperative and/or the IP or receiver has limited knowledge of the property and company.
The Supreme Court of Canada's ("SCC") recent decision in Peace River Hydro Partners v.
mourant.com 2021934/84097043/2 GUIDE Insolvency procedures for Guernsey companies Last reviewed: February 2023 Contents Introduction 2 Modern corporate insolvency proceedings 2 Administration 2 Liquidation 3 Voluntary liquidation 3 Compulsory liquidation 4 Scheme of arrangement 5 Statutory process 5 Three-stage mechanism 5 Approval and challenges 5 Receivership 5 The traditional procedures 6 Désastre 6 Saisie 6 Out-of-court restructurings and consensual workouts 7 Conclusion 7 Contacts 7 2 mourant.com 2021934/84097043/2 Introduction Guernsey law provides a number of ways to ensure an orderl
mourant.com 2021934/73089611/3 GUIDE Protected Cell Companies Last reviewed: January 2023 Contents Introduction 2 What is a PCC and what is it used for? 2 Advantages and disadvantages of a PCC 2 Formation of a PCC 2 What are cellular assets? 3 What are core assets?
The Ontario Fraudulent Conveyances Act1 (the FCA), a concise statute of long-standing that traces its history to an English statute of 1571, is intended to prevent conveyances of property made with the intent to defeat, hinder, delay or defraud “creditors or others” of their just and lawful actions, suits, debts, accounts, damages, penalties or forfeitures.
In a unanimous decision, with concurring reasons, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) has rendered its long-anticipated judgment regarding the intersection of insolvency and domestic arbitration law in Peace River Hydro Partners v. Petrowest Corp., 2022 SCC 41.
In the recent case of Peace River Hydro Partners v. Petrowest Corp., 2022 SCC 41 (Peace River), the Supreme Court of Canada (the SCC) clarified the circumstances in which an otherwise valid arbitration agreement may be held to be inoperative in the context of a court-ordered receivership under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. B-3 (the BIA).
BACKGROUND
On November 10, 2022, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) issued its much-anticipated decision in Peace River Hydro Partners v Petrowest Corp, 2022 SCC 41, addressing a key intersection of insolvency and arbitration law—whether and in what circumstances a contractual agreement to arbitrate should give way to the public interest in the orderly and efficient resolution of a court-ordered receivership.
This table provides a high level overview of the restructuring and insolvency processes available in Australia, comparing their purposes, effects, advantages and disadvantages.