<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Going-concern liquidation auction: alleged business plan could not expand sale to subsidiary assets, while forfeiture remained disputed.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=100744</link>
    <description>A liquidation auction for sale of a corporate debtor as a going concern was confined to the corporate debtor on an as is where is, as is what is, whatever there is and no recourse basis, and an alleged business plan could not enlarge the sale to include subsidiaries, joint ventures, associates or other third-party assets. The text notes that such assets were not shown to form part of the liquidation estate, and the prayers for restraint against alienation and for further extension or amendment of the payment schedule were rejected. Cancellation of the bid for non-payment was upheld, but the forfeiture of deposited sums remained unresolved because the Members differed on that limited issue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 13 Jun 2026 09:11:50 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 13 Jun 2026 09:11:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=906820" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Going-concern liquidation auction: alleged business plan could not expand sale to subsidiary assets, while forfeiture remained disputed.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=100744</link>
      <description>A liquidation auction for sale of a corporate debtor as a going concern was confined to the corporate debtor on an as is where is, as is what is, whatever there is and no recourse basis, and an alleged business plan could not enlarge the sale to include subsidiaries, joint ventures, associates or other third-party assets. The text notes that such assets were not shown to form part of the liquidation estate, and the prayers for restraint against alienation and for further extension or amendment of the payment schedule were rejected. Cancellation of the bid for non-payment was upheld, but the forfeiture of deposited sums remained unresolved because the Members differed on that limited issue.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 13 Jun 2026 09:11:50 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=100744</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>