Suchergebnisse

Provisions of Article 149 paragraph (1) of Law Number 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Company/Limited Liability Company do not mention the authority to verify bill of creditors and the authority to sell property assets. In practice, the liquidator often acts as the seller of the company's assets. This was doneto fill the legal vacuumfor the smooth liability of the liquidator. Therefore, the problem is how are the provisions of the legislation to the obligations of the liquidator in the process of liquidation of the limited liability company? The study approach method used is a description of juridical ciritical analysis. The urgency of writing this article is so that the liquidator is authorized to verify creditor bills and authority and sell assest. The result of a descriptive study of critical analysis are normal obligations of the liquidator to do the liquidation of the company'sassest other than those stipulated in article 149 paragraph (1) namely the authority to verify the creditor's bill as well as the authority to sell Limited Liability Company assets.

The dissolution of a Limited Liability Company is basically something that isn't desired by the shareholders, therefore the implementation of the dissolution of a Limited Liability Company should be avoided as much as possible, because the dissolution of a Limited Liability Company will provide great losses for the shareholders of the company and the parties directly related to the Company Limited. Pursuant to Article 142 paragraph (1) of Law Number 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Companies, the dissolution of a Company may occur due to: First, based on the resolution of the General Meeting of Shareholders; Second, because the period stipulated in the articles of association has ended; Third, based on a court order; Fourth, with the revocation of bankruptcy based on the decision of the commercial court which has permanent legal force, the Company's bankruptcy assets are not sufficient to pay bankruptcy costs; Fifth, because the Company's bankrupt assets that have been declared bankrupt are in a state of insolvency as regulated in the Law on Bankruptcy and Postponement of Debt Payment Obligations; Sixth, due to the revocation of the Company's business license, which requires the Company to conduct liquidation in accordance with the provisions of laws and regulations. Based on the research results, the liquidator must make and submit a report on the liquidation implementation process, the report contains the responsibility for the liquidation he did. Furthermore, the accountability report is given and submitted by the liquidator to the General Meeting of Shareholders, the District Court, the liquidator is obliged to notify the final result of the liquidation to the Minister, the liquidator is also required to announce the final result of the liquidation process in a newspaper, the liquidator is responsible to the General Meeting of Shareholders or the court that appointed it for the liquidation of the Limited Liability Company. There is a criminal sanction, and if it can be proven that the liquidator acted the opposite / cheated arbitrarily in the sense of not clearing all company affairs in the context of liquidation, then the liquidator can be prosecuted by reporting violations of the code of ethics, and the Liquidator has the right to attend a lawsuit in court , Liquidators have the power to maintain and dispose of assets, Liquidators have general administrative power, Liquidators have continuous control rights over the Company's liquidation assets, Liquidators have the right to sell the liquidated assets.

A notary is a public official who has duties and authorities related to making an authentic deed, in this case, the making of an act and the dissolution of a limited liability company. A limited liability company is a type of business entity consisting of shares. The establishment of a Limited Liability Company must meet the requirements specified in the laws and regulations. The Company's organs must exist within the Company, including the Company's organs, the General Meeting of Shareholders, the Board of Directors and the Board of Commissioners. Then regarding the dissolution of the company, the dissolution of the Company must be followed by liquidation. Meanwhile, liquidation is carried out by the liquidator or curator either based on the decision of the General Meeting of Shareholders or a court decision. This study aims to analyze the powers and responsibilities of a Notary concerning the liquidation process of a Limited Liability Company in Indonesia. The research method used is normative, using secondary data obtained from library research, including primary, secondary, and tertiary legal sources. The authority of a notary is to make a deed of the minutes of the first and second General Meeting of Shareholders and draw up a deed of dissolution of a limited liability company. The responsibilities of a notary in the liquidation of a limited liability company are regarding the responsibility for the deed he made and the civil, administrative, and criminal responsibilities. There are three processes. The first is the General Meeting Shareholders regarding the approval of the dissolution and the appointment of a liquidator. Second, namely the General Meeting of Shareholders agenda of approval of the liquidator's report and the granting of release and discharge of the liquidator's responsibilities. Finally, namely the making of a deed of dissolution of the company by a Notary.

British Commonwealth of Nations — Whether Revenue Laws of One Member Enforceable in Courts of Another — Indian Tax Claim against Liquidator of English Company — Action by Government of India in English Courts.Jurisdiction — Enforcement of Revenue Laws — Whether Enforceable by Action in Courts of Another State — Whether Rule Different in the British Commonwealth of Nations — Tax Claim by Indian Government against Liquidator of English Company — Whether Actionable in English Courts — Whether Alternatively Recoverable as "Liability" of Company in Voluntary Liquidation.

Die – zumindest interimsweise – Betriebsfortführung ist der "Eckstein" jeder Sanierung eines Unternehmens in der Insolvenz. Doch der vorläufige Insolvenzverwalter sieht sich bei der Betriebsfortführung mit unverhältnismäßigen Haftungsrisiken konfrontiert. Der Haftungsmaßstab ist von unbestimmten Rechtsbegriffen geprägt und aufgrund kaum vorhandener Kasuistik aus Praktikersicht kaum zu überblicken. Zudem legt die herrschende Lehre den Pflichtenkreis des Verwalters einseitig zu Lasten effektiver, sanierungsorientierter Betriebsfortführung aus, was defensives Verwalterhandeln motiviert und die Sanierungschancen nachhaltig verringert. Der Autor stellt heraus, dass bei zutreffender Gewichtung der Ziele des Insolvenzeröffnungsverfahrens, der gesetzgeberischen Intention und der Gesetzessystematik ein sanierungsfördernder Haftungsmaßstab angelegt werden muss. Im Ergebnis fasst der Autor diesen optimierten Maßstab in klare, in der Praxis anwendbare, Kriterien.

This article reviews recent developments in the law affecting Virginia businesses and corporations. Part II discusses judicial decisions, including: a United States Supreme Court decision concerning private rights of action under section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; a Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals opinion denying absolute priority to the FDIC as liquidator; two decisions interpreting the Virginia Stock Corporation Act, one by the Fourth Circuit denying the protection of the good faith standard to directors and one by the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia refusing to characterize a failed LBO/cash merger as an unlawful distribution; two Supreme Court of Virginia decisions regarding closely-held corporations, one returning control of a corporation from a son to his father by applying principles of gift law and one ordering the dissolution of a profitable corporation due to oppression of minority shareholders; a group of three cases in which the Fourth Circuit and two Virginia circuit courts determined whether one can recover from a successor for corporate liability; and several rulings that challenge convention, including a Western District decision that one of four family shareholders can bring a derivative action against the other three, a Western District ruling that a bank could be a seller under section 12(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, and a Fourth Circuit holding that a series of actions taken in pursuit of a freezeout stated a RICO claim. Part III discusses recent legislative developments affecting corporate and business law in Virginia.

Auch das Flaggschiff europäischer Insolvenzgesetzgebung, die EUInsVO, konnte sich den Bestrebungen des Unionsgesetzgebers zur Etablierung einer europäischen "Sanierungskultur" nicht verschließen. Die Untersuchung beschäftigt sich mit der im Zuge dieser Entwicklung neu eingeführten Möglichkeit zur Abgabe einer Zusicherung gem. Art. 36 EUInsVO. Die Norm stellt eine Rechtsgrundlage zur Verfügung, aufgrund derer in Europa nun flächendeckend virtuelle Sekundärinsolvenzverfahren durchgeführt werden können. Die Idee besteht darin, Sekundärverfahren zu vermeiden, indem den Gläubigern vom Hauptinsolvenzverwalter zugesagt wird, dass sie so gestellt werden, wie wenn ein Sekundärverfahren im jeweiligen Mitgliedstaat durchgeführt worden wäre. Ziel der Arbeit ist es, durch Handlungsempfehlungen einen möglichen Weg aufzuzeigen, damit die europäische Zusicherung – trotz der vielfach geäußerten Kritik – tatsächlich einen sinnvollen Beitrag zur Abwicklung grenzüberschreitender Insolvenzen leisten kann.

This note focuses on the deposit insurance scheme. An analysis of the Deposit Insurance Agency (DIA) is provided to the extent that it is relevant to the management of the deposit insurance scheme and no detail analysis of the other functions performed by the DIA, e.g. bank resolution, is included. Policy recommendations on the bank resolution are included in the Aide Memoire. DIA revenue sources are volatile and Deposit Insurance Fund (DIF) related revenues are used to subsidize non-DIF related activities. The legal framework is ambiguous as to whether DIF resources can be used to cover running costs of the DIA. To improve transparency and ensure sustainability of the DIF, the legal framework should be amended to clarify the use of DIF resources and cap use for operating costs. The authorities should develop a medium term strategy for the DIA, including a funding strategy for non-DIF related activities

The bank insolvency framework in Poland should be modernized to ensure financial stability, maintain the continuity of critical functions in the banking system, and protect depositors and creditors, while assigning losses according to a pre-established creditor hierarchy. Several country experiences in Europe and elsewhere have demonstrated the effectiveness of new bank resolution measures by the European commission. A key aspect of the resolution process is for the authorities to swiftly assess and revalue the balance sheet of the intervened bank. Other particularities of modern resolution procedures relate to maintaining the integrity of secured financial contracts to prevent disruptions in financial market transactions including in payments and settlements systems. The treatment of systemically important institutions should rely on extraordinary resolution tools which are necessary if a bank is too large to be purchased or for its liabilities to be readily assumed. The purpose of this paper is thus to describe and recommend new features that can be added to strengthen the Polish legislation for handling commercial bank insolvencies. The paper focuses on the legal issues related to insolvency of banks (including commercial banks and cooperative banks). The banking sector's share in the total assets of the credit sector amounts to 89 percent while cooperative banks control 6 percent. The only wholly-owned state bank is the development bank Bank Gospodarstwa Krajowego (BGK) which is subject to supervision by the Polish Financial Supervisory Authority (KNF).

The sales of goods and services are exposed to a significant number of risks, many of which are not within the control of the supplier. The highest of these risks and one that can have a catastrophic impact on the viability of a supplier, is the failure of a buyer to pay for the goods or services it has purchased. In today's challenged domestic and global economic climate, recognizing and managing future risks has become a priority for businesses. Losses attributed to non-payment of a trade debt or bankruptcy can and do occur regularly. Default rates vary by industry and country from year-to-year, and no industry or company is immune from trade credit risk. The essential value of trade credit insurance is that it provides not only peace of mind to the supplier, who can be assured that their trade is protected, but also valuable market intelligence on the financial viability of the supplier's customers, and, in the case of buyers in foreign countries, on any trading risks peculiar to those countries. As well as providing an insurance policy that matches the client's patterns of business, trade credit insurers will establish the level of cover that can reasonably be provided to the supplier for trade with each individual buyer, by analyzing the buyer's financial status, profitability, liquidity, size, sector, payment behavior and location.