EQS-News: Corestate Capital Holding SA / Keyword(s): Declaration/Corporate Restructuring
CORESTATE supports creditors’ proposal for bond restructuring – Extraordinary General Meeting postponed to December 20, 2022
22.11.2022 / 16:29 CET/EST
The issuer is solely responsible for the content of this announcement.

CORESTATE supports creditors’ proposal for bond restructuring – Extraordinary General Meeting postponed to December 20, 2022

Luxembourg, November 22, 2022 – The Management Board of CORESTATE Capital Holding SA (CORESTATE) today unanimously decided to support the restructuring proposal of the Ad-hoc Committee (AHC), a group of large bondholders. The main reason for the decision is to ensure the continuity of the business given the time remaining until the meeting of creditors on November 28, 2022 and in light of the talks between the group of investors and the AHC, which have so far been inconclusive. . Together with the representatives of the bondholders, AHC’s proposal must now be further developed in the short term, including necessary bridging financing, and brought into an executable and legally binding form on the basis of which the going concern of the group is assured.

In this context, today’s extraordinary general meeting has also been postponed by four weeks to December 20, 2022 in order to allow a broad shareholder vote with the help of a concrete and promising restructuring concept.

Press Contact and Investor Relations
Thomas Fritsch
Such. : +49 69 3535630-106 / M: +49 162 1036025
[email protected]

About Corestate Capital Holding SA (Corestate)

Corestate is an investment manager and co-investor with €17.3 billion in core assets under management. The company sees itself as a manager across the entire real estate value chain. Thanks to its fully integrated real estate platform, it is able to offer investors a wide range of services, including the possibility of investing in large-scale societal trends such as urbanization, demographic changes or sustainability – trends which will continue to have a decisive influence on the living and working environment in the long term. A constant focus on asset classes that will succeed over the long term is the cornerstone of the company’s strategy. At Corestate, all concepts are backed by ESG expertise that is unique in the industry. With more than 400 experts, Corestate offers its clients and investors a full range of services and advice from a single source, from project financing and property management to sales. Corestate is listed on the Frankfurt Stock Exchange and operates as a respected business partner for institutional and semi-institutional investors as well as high net worth private investors in 11 countries across Europe, with offices in Luxembourg, Frankfurt, Munich, Zurich , Paris and Madrid. Please visit www.corestate-capital.com for more information.

Forward-looking statement

This press release may contain certain forward-looking statements based on current assumptions and forecasts made by our management. Various known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors could lead to material differences between the actual future results, financial situation, development or performance of the Company and the estimates given here. These factors include those described in published reports. These reports are available on our website www.corestate-capital.com. The Company undertakes no obligation to update these forward-looking statements or to conform them to future events or developments. No inappropriate meaning should be attached to the forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date of this communication.

22.11.2022 CET/CEST Broadcast of a Corporate News, transmitted by EQS News – a service of EQS Group AG.
The issuer is solely responsible for the content of this announcement.

EQS distribution services include regulatory announcements, financial/corporate news and press releases.
Archives on www.eqs-news.com

The board of directors of DOF ASA has pursuant to section 5-7(2) of the
Norwegian Public Limited Companies Act received a request for an extraordinary
general meeting ("EGM") to be held to consider a proposal to elect a new board
of directors in the company. The request has been submitted on behalf of Bjarte
Brønmo and Sans Invest AS holding more than 5% of the share capital. It has been
informed that Leif Salomonsen will be proposed as new chair of the board and
that the other candidates will be presented prior to the general meeting.
The board of directors will convene an EGM to be held no later than 14 December
2022.
We also attach a new letter received from the financial creditors of the DOF
Group, in which it (i) once again is reiterated by the financial creditors that
there is no room for further negotiations, (ii) is confirmed that the financial
creditors stand by their statement that they, if necessary, will contribute to
implementation of the restructuring through a forced reconstruction and/or
bankruptcy in DOF ASA and (ii) is expressed that the financial creditors
thereby, and in order to preserve the interests of the DOF Group's employees,
suppliers and customers, are prepared to contribute to the preservation of the
DOF Group's value as a going concern irrespective of the contribution of the
shareholders. Further to this, the financial creditors have made it clear that
there are no other available alternatives than the negotiated restructuring
solution unless the overdue debt of approximately NOK 23 billion is settled. In
the same letter it is further emphasized that any action that would be contrary
to the interest of the DOF group and the stakeholders of DOF ASA (multitude of
the shareholders, creditors etc.) will expose the board of directors in DOF ASA
at any given time to personal liability.

For further information, please contact:
CEO Mons Aase, tel. +47 91 66 10 12
CFO Martin Lundberg, tel. +47 91 62 10 57

This information is subject to the disclosure requirements pursuant to section
5-12 of the Norwegian Securities Trading Act.

About DOF Subsea:
The DOF Subsea Group is a specialist subsea service business that provides
subsea construction, subsea engineering, inspection, repair and maintenance and
survey services, which involve complex and challenging engineering in an
international environment.

DOF Subsea owns a large fleet of modern subsea construction, intervention and
survey vessels that enable it to offer differentiated positions with its clients
and work in long term relationships, which enhance service delivery and reduce
the overall risk.

The company's core business is project management, engineering, vessel
operations, survey, remote intervention and diving operations, primarily for the
Offshore Energy, Marine Telecommunications and Renewables markets.

www.dofsubsea.com

Click here for more information

© Oslo Bors ASA, source Oslo Stock Exchange

Bombay: IL&FS has commenced interim distribution payment with Rapid Metro Gurgaon Rail Ltd (RMGL), an IL&FS group company.

The group has completed the distribution of Rs 623.38 crore, on an interim basis, to secured lenders/secured financial creditors of RMGL comprising Union Bank of India, Bank of India, Indian Bank, Punjab & Sind Bank, UCO Bank, Bank of Baroda, National Bank of Punjab and Overseas Indian Bank.

The total claims from these lenders was Rs 715 crore.

This provisional distribution therefore translates into a recovery of approximately 83% for these creditors. The disbursement of additional amounts to unsecured financial creditors and unsecured creditors is also in progress.

The IL&FS board of directors had approved this interim distribution at its board meeting held on November 2. This is the first payment by IL&FS under the interim distribution in which it is proposed to distribute a total amount of Rs 16,361 crore to certain group companies.

The proposed distribution of Rs 16,361 crore which would include Rs 11,296 crore silver and Rs 5,065 crore Invit unit is being undertaken in accordance with the draft distribution framework approved by NCLAT in June this year.

The Board announced that a significant portion (Rs 55,000 crore) of the overall resolution (of Rs 61,000 crore) would be completed by this year (subject to approvals).

However, the final resolution of the remaining entities of the IL&FS group (resolution value Rs 6,000 crore) is likely to take a long time due to the complexity of the process.

Therefore, interim distribution has been proposed to facilitate payment to all classes of creditors (in accordance with the NCLAT-approved process) on the condition that any excess payment in the interim stage shall be returned to the group no later than final distribution stage.

Montana Nineteenth Judicial District Court of Lincoln County In the Matter of Ellexa Waid Tuengel’s Name Change Petitioner Allexa Waid Tuengel Case No. DV-22-107 Notice of Name Change Hearing This is a notice that the petitioner has requested a change in the District Court of the name of Ellexa Waid Tuengel to Ellexa Luani Heyman. The hearing will take place on December 5, 2022 at 11:00 a.m. The hearing will be held at the Lincoln County Courthouse. Dated September 15, 2022. s/ Tricia Brooks Clerk of the District Court s/ Michelle Freese Assistant Clerk of the Court Published in The Western News on October 28, November 4, 11 and 18, 2022. MNAXLP

Notice to Creditors Estate of James Robert Puckey Date of Birth June 10, 1955 To All Creditors: Notice to Creditors: The deceased, James Robert Puckey, who lived at 788 Tobacco Road, Eureka, Montana 59917 died on October 03, 2021. Creditors of the deceased are advised that all claims against the estate shall forever be barred unless presented to Jim Hammons, Public Administrator of Lincoln County, appointed Personal Representative, at 512 California Avenue, Libby, Montana 59923, telephone 406 -283-2345, within 120 days after the date of publication of this notice. c/ Jim Hammons Personal Representative of the Lincoln County Public Administrator for the Estate. 512 California Ave. Libby, Montana 59923 406-283-2345 Published in The Western News November 4, 11 and 18, 2022. MNAXLP

REQUEST FOR SEALED PROPOSALS Meadow Peak Communications Tower The Lincoln County Sheriff’s Office is inviting tenders for the construction of a communications tower to support antennas at the Meadow Peak Communications Site. Respondents should direct all questions to: Undersheriff Brent Faulkner, Lincoln County Sheriff’s Office, 512 California Ave., Libby, MT 59923; (406) 293-4112 ext. 1231; [email protected]. The specifications are also available online at http://lincolncountymt.us under “Public Notices”. No later than November 21, 2022, 5:00 p.m. MST, proposals must be received in a sealed envelope marked “RFP – Meadow Peak Communications Tower” on the outside and addressed to: Undersheriff Brent Faulkner, Lincoln County Sheriff’s Office , 512 California Ave., Libby, MT 59923. Bids will be opened and considered at a public meeting of Lincoln County Commissioners on November 23, 2022. Lincoln County reserves the right to decline all bids for this project . Published in The Western News November 4-11, 2022. MNAXLP

Introduction

In the recent case of Atlas Equifin Pte Ltd v Electronic Cash and Payment Solutions (S) Pte Ltd (Andy Lim and others, non-parties) [2022] SGHC 258 (“Equifin Atlas”), the High Court of Singapore had occasion to consider the unexplored question of whether shareholders/contributors have standing to oppose a creditor’s liquidation claim.

Facts

The affair of Equifin Atlas concerned a request for liquidation filed by the Claimant against the Respondent on the basis of a guarantee (“Guarantee”) given by the defendant. Under the Guarantee, the Defendant agreed to pay the Plaintiff all sums due and payable by the Defendant’s subsidiary (“Subsidiary company”), resulting from a Loan Credit Facility entered into between the Subsidiary and the Applicant.

Due to the non-reimbursement by the Subsidiary of the amounts due under the Credit Facility, the Claimant then demanded payment from the Defendant under the Guarantee. As the defendant failed to make payment to the plaintiff, the plaintiff issued a legal demand to the defendant and subsequently filed for liquidation against the defendant.

A shareholder and contributor of the defendant, a certain Mrs. Monica Kochhar, a 36.2% shareholder and contributor of the defendant, sought and obtained leave to oppose the defendant’s application for liquidation on the ground that the debt owed by the Defendant to Plaintiff is disputed, that Defendant remains a going concern, and Plaintiff’s liquidation request is an abuse of process by Plaintiff to impose improper pressure on Defendant.

Singapore High Court Decision

Having found that the plaintiff has established the defendant’s ground for liquidation under section 125(1)(e) read in conjunction with section 125(2)(a) of the Insolvency Act 2018, restructuring and dissolution (“IRDA”), the Singapore High Court then ruled that the shareholders/contributors had the legal capacity to oppose the liquidation claims.

Firstly, the High Court of Singapore was aware that although there is no explicit grant of a right to shareholders/contributors to object to a winding-up claim in the IRDA, the subsidiary legislation relevant, namely the Insolvency and Dissolution (Insolvency and Corporate Restructuring) Rules 2020 (“2020 CIR Regulation”), is not incompatible with such a right either. In this regard, Rule 69 of the 2020 CIR Regulation expressly provides for the “contributor of a company” the right to be provided with a copy of the liquidation request and the supporting affidavit. In this regard, Rule 69 of the 2020 CIR Rules reads as follows:

“Copy of application for liquidation and supporting affidavit to be provided to creditor or contributor

69. Any creditor or contributor of a company has the right to obtain, from the plaintiff of an application for liquidation with respect to the company, a copy of each of the [winding up] application and the affidavit in support of the application within 48 hours of making the request, upon payment of $1 per page of such copy.”

For clarity, in Singapore, the term “contributor” refers to a person who may contribute to the company’s assets in the event of the company’s liquidation and includes the holder of fully paid shares.

The High Court of Singapore further concluded that the purpose of Rule 69 of the 2020 CIR Rules is to provide shareholders/contributors with relevant information on a winding-up application so that they can, if they wish, oppose it.

Second, the High Court of Singapore further referred to Rule 72(1) of the CIR Rules 2020, a provision which relates to the filing of affidavits in opposition to a winding up application which does not limit the right to oppose a request for liquidation to the only companies facing liquidation. In this regard, rule 72(1) of the CIR 2020 regulation reads as follows:

“Affidavits Opposing the Liquidation Application and Affidavits in Response

1. Any affidavit opposing an application for liquidation must be produced and a copy of the affidavit must be served on the plaintiff at least 5 days before the day fixed for the hearing of the application..”

Third, the Singapore High Court also held that the proposition that shareholders/contributors have standing to oppose a winding-up petition is supported by the English authorities. In this regard, the High Court of Singapore took into account the following English authorities (“English authorities”):

I. Re Camburn Petroleum Products Ltd [1979] 3 All ER 297 (“Cambridge”) where Slade J, ruled that a court hearing a creditor’s liquidation claim could “take into account the wishes of contributors“, although “little weight” is attached “to the will of the contributors, with regard to the weight it attaches to the will of a [unpaid] creditor”.

ii. McPherson & Keay’s Law of Business Liquidation (Sweet & Maxwell, 5^e Ed, 2021) where the authors explain that “[o]Liquidation petition may come from co-creditors of the petitioner…or of the company or (which is about the same thing) of the shareholders”;

iii. Re Rodencroft Ltd. [2004] 1 WLR 1566 (“Re Rodencroft”) where Evans-Lombe J endorsed Cambridge and ruled that a contributor has the “prima facie right to appear on [winding up] motion and filing of evidence in opposition” on condition that “he could show that [the] the company was solvent.” ; and

iv. Goode on principles of corporate insolvency law (Sweet & Maxwell, 5^e Ed, 2018) where the authors wrote that “contributors also have the right to be heard in opposition”.

The High Court of Singapore also recognized that with such a conclusion, the courts could be inundated with frivolous requests to oppose liquidation claims, which could unduly disrupt the liquidation process and unnecessarily increase costs. Based on this, the High Court of Singapore then set out a non-exhaustive set of factors to consider in determining whether the court should allow shareholders/taxpayers to object to a winding-up petition. These factors are:

I. the shareholder/contributor holds a significant portion of the company’s shareholding so that he has a substantial interest in opposing the liquidation request;

ii. the shareholder/contributor is able to demonstrate that the company is solvent. The reason for this is that the liquidation plaintiff should not be “put at the cost of a contested request where the only opposition comes from a contributor who cannot demonstrate that the company is solvent so that he has a real interest in the result”;

iii. the shareholder/contributor must act authentic; and

iv. the court must balance the interest of the shareholder/contributor against the wishes of an unpaid creditor. In this regard, the court would normally give little weight to the wishes of the shareholders/taxpayers compared to the weight it would give to the wishes of any creditor in the situation where the creditor proves both that he is unpaid and that the company is “unable to pay debts”.

The applicability of Equifin Atlas and the English authorities

Although the Companies Act 2016 does not explicitly grant shareholders/contributors the right to object to a winding-up application, it is likely that the decision in Equifin Atlas would be applied here by Malaysian courts to the effect that shareholders/contributors would be required to have standing to oppose liquidation petitions.

Firstly, as in the case of Singapore, the relevant subsidiary legislation here, the Companies (Winding Up) Rules 1972 (“Winding-up rules”), is not incompatible with such a right either. In fact, Rule 27 of the Liquidation Rules reads as follows:Any contributor or creditor of the company is entitled to be furnished by the petitioner or his attorney with a copy of the petition within forty-eight hours after demanding it against payment at the rate of fifty cents per folio of 100 words or part of it.”. This is similar to Rule 69 of the 2020 CIR Rules.

Second, Rule 30(1) of the WUR, which also relates to the filing of affidavits against the liquidation petition, also does not prohibit contributors from filing opposing affidavits. In this regard, Rule 30(1) of the WUR provides that “Affidavits opposing a motion to wind up a corporation must be filed and a copy served on the petitioner or his attorney at least seven days before the time set for the hearing of the motion.”. This is similar to rule 72(1) of the CIR 2020 regulations.

Third, Rule 28 of the WUR which relates to the notice of intention to be filed by those who intend to appear at the hearing of the winding up motion also does not prohibit contributors from appearing at the hearing of the petition for liquidation. Indeed, form n°8 of the WUR explicitly provides that a contributor may express his intention to appear and oppose a request for liquidation. In this respect, Form 8 of the WUR is identical to Form CIR-15, contained in the First Schedule of the CIR Rules 2020, which was also considered by the High Court of Singapore in Equifin Atlas.

Fourth, there are also similarities between English and Malaysian law in this context. For example, the English High Court of Re Rodencroft refers to section 195(1)(a) of the Insolvency Act 1986 as the only provision referring to a contributor’s possible legal capacity to oppose a winding-up petition. In this regard, Section 195(1)(a) of the Insolvency Act 1986 provides as follows:

“(1) The court may—

(a) in all matters relating to the winding up of a company, take into account the will of the creditors or contributors (as proved to him by any sufficient evidence)…”

Similarly, Section 521 of the Companies Act 2016 reads: “the court may, for all matters relating to the liquidation of a company, take into account the wishes of creditors or contributors as proved to the Court by sufficient evidence…” [Emphasis added].

Conclusion

The decision to Equifin Atlas certainly tips the balance of the law in favor of the debtors, which seems to deviate from the almost strict common law position that an unpaid creditor has the right to liquidate a company as of right. Nevertheless, Equifin Atlas is undoubtedly a much appreciated decision as it sheds some light on this matter. There is also no doubt that Equifin Atlas would most likely also be enforced by Malaysian courts. However, it is prudent for the Malaysian courts to tread carefully on this issue lest they be inundated with waves of frivolous motions to oppose the liquidation of the claims. It is important to note that Malaysian courts must ensure that shareholders/contributors present sufficient evidence to show that the company in question is solvent.

On August 15, 2022, the Governor of California signed SB 633, which expands the requirement for creditors to provide a co-signer notice when obtaining multiple person signatures on a consumer credit agreement. For the purposes of this law, a consumer credit agreement includes, among other things, retail installment agreements, loans or other extensions of credit.[1]

Under current law, a creditor must provide the notice to each person who signs the consumer credit agreement but does not receive any part of the money, goods or services that are the subject of the agreement. (i.e. a co-signer), unless the persons are married to each other. In addition, under current law, the required cosignature notice had to be provided in English and Spanish. The notice could also be on a separate sheet of the contract or in the text of the contract itself.

SB 633 changes existing law by requiring that notice be given to all co-signers of the contract, whether or not the persons are married. The amended law also now requires that the notice now be provided in any language except English, as stated in Cal. Civil. Code § 1632(b) (i.e. Spanish, Chinese, Tagalog, Vietnamese, Korean). The notice must also meet the following requirements:

1. It may not contain any other text, except that which is necessary to identify the lender and the consumer credit contract or the lessor and the lease to which the declaration refers;
2. It must mention the date and the person’s acknowledgment of receipt; and
3. It must be attached to and precede the consumer credit agreement. SB 633 also changes the text of the notice itself by changing the way the header is presented and indicates that it should be clear and visible and in Arial 10 point equivalent.

Additionally, note that this statute provides that if federal law or regulation requires or permits the use of a substantially similar notice (e.g., the FTC Credit Practices Rule Co-Signer Notice), l Use of the Federally Sanctioned Notice translated into the required languages ​​will constitute compliance with the California Notice.

The amended law takes effect on January 1, 2023. By January 1, 2023, the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) will provide translations of the required notices on its website, which may be used to satisfy to the notice requirement. At this time, the California DFPI has not yet released translations of the notice, but we will continue to monitor the DFPI website for information as it becomes available.

[1] A “consumer credit agreement” is defined as any of the following obligations to pay money on a deferred payment basis, where the money, goods, services or other consideration which is the subject of the contract are primarily intended for personal, family, or household purposes, including in the relevant part: (a) Retail installment sales contracts; (b) Retail installment accounts; (3) Conditional sales contracts; (4) Loans or extensions of credit secured by non-real estate, or unsecured, intended to be used primarily for personal, family or household purposes; (5) Loans or extensions of credit to be used primarily for personal, family or household purposes when such loans or extensions of credit are subject to the provisions of [certain enumerated sections], Division 7 (beginning with Section 18000), Division 9 (beginning with Section 22000) (California Financing Law) or Division 10 (beginning with Section 24000) of the Financial Code, whether secured by real property or otherwise ; and (6) Rental Agreements. Cal. Civil. Code § 1799.90(a). “Creditor” means an individual, partnership, corporation, association or other entity, however designated, who enters into or arranges consumer credit agreements in the ordinary course of business. Cal. Civil. Code § 1799.90(b)(definition not modified by SB 633).

The country’s net foreign liability position increased to P1.5 trillion in the first quarter, up 17.3 percent from P1.3 trillion in the fourth quarter of last year, based on the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas Balance Sheet Approach (BSA) report. (BSP).

On a yearly basis, the net external liability position increased by 115% from P714.5 billion in the same period of 2021.

The BSA, a financial stability monitoring tool, covers national government (NG), households, production-based institutions, all banks and non-banks, insurance companies, money market corporations and the BSP itself.

According to the report, the net external liabilities of general government (GG) and non-financial corporations (NFC) increased quarter on quarter. By sector, the BSP said households (HH) and financial corporations continued to be net creditors to the economy, while NFCs and GG were net debtors.

The year-on-year increase in the country’s external financial liabilities more than offset the growth in its external assets.

“In particular, external financial liabilities increased by 17.3% (from 11,900 billion pesos to 14,000 billion pesos) due to the increase in liabilities of NFCs and GGs of the ROW (rest of the world) “, according to the report.

As for external financial assets, they increased by 11.1% to reach 12,400 billion pesos at the end of March, against 11,200 billion pesos at the end of 2021, “the indebtedness of the national economy towards external creditors presenting itself mainly in the form of shares and shares of investment funds and loans. »

NFCs, which are both public and private institutional units engaged in the production of market goods and non-financial services, reported a net debtor position of P8.4 trillion in the first quarter, up 3.2% compared to the previous quarter of P8.2. trillion.

“The net debtor position of NFCs widened primarily due to increased net liabilities to ROW and other depository companies (ODCs). The net debit position of NFCs to ROW and ODCs widened mainly due to increased cross-border borrowing and contraction of NFC deposits with ODCs, respectively,” the BSP said.

The GG reported a net financial liability position of 6.8 trillion pesos during the period, down 0.5% from 6.9 trillion pesos in the last quarter of 2021.

“GG’s net financial liability position decreased slightly in the first quarter (Q1) 2022, mainly due to higher central bank (CB) and ODC deposits, which partly tempered the growth of its financial liabilities. GG’s gross liabilities increased due to increased obligations to BC, ODCs and ROW. GG’s liabilities were mainly in the form of government securities held primarily by ODCs and ROW” , said the BSP.

Meanwhile, the BSP said households were still the largest net creditor with a net financial position of 10.7 trillion pesos, up 2.4% from 10.5 trillion pesos in the previous quarter. .

“HHs remained the largest creditor among domestic sectors (and its expansion) stemmed from higher net claims on ODCs and OFCs,” the BSP said. The improvement in the net financing capacity of households is explained by the following elements: shares and shares in investment funds issued by the OFC; debt securities; and standard insurance, pension and warranty plans.

On the other hand, ODC’s net creditor position decreased during the quarter due to an increase in ODC’s gross financial liabilities which more than offset the growth of its financial assets, the BSP said.

The net creditor position of ODCs decreased by 9.5% to 2,000 billion pesos against 2,200 billion pesos in the last quarter of 2022. ODCs are banks and non-banking institutions, associations of savings and loans other than shares, money market funds and offshore banking units.

The BSA report is basically a presentation of the country’s sector accounts on a who-to-whom basis. It is developed by the International Monetary Fund and is considered by BSP primarily as a financial stability monitoring tool. “The BSA is also useful in identifying the possible emergence of a financial crisis, particularly those arising from asset-liability mismatches and growing balance sheet interconnections,” the BSP said.

Q. I divorced in 2021 and all the debt was in my name and my ex-wife did not have to take on the marital debt. I continued to pay on my credit cards, but not on the ones she used, as I hoped she would have to take on this debt. It’s now $33,000 and it’s affecting my credit. A few are in collection, but all are invoiced. Recently, a debt consolidation company approached me to try to arrange a debt resolution fixed repayment plan. The statute of limitations for most of these cards is two years. What should I do next?

— Debtor

A. We are sorry to hear that you have this debt and it is now affecting your credit report.

Let’s move on to your options.

First, the statute of limitations begins when the last payment has been made, said Union City bankruptcy attorney Karra Kingston.

However, if you make a payment to the debt settlement company, it will restart the statute of limitations, she said.

“It’s important to note that debt settlement companies aren’t always the right solution,” she said. “If you have large debts and don’t have the money to pay creditors, it’s best to speak to a bankruptcy attorney who handles both settlements and bankruptcy so they can can give you a full picture of your options.”

Typically, if you do nothing, it takes seven years for late payments to disappear from your credit report, Kingston said, but sometimes it takes longer when the debts are liquidated and the new creditor can start paying. report these late payments.

But, creditors can start suing you and get a judgment against you if the statute of limitations has not expired.

A judgment means they can garnish your wages, take your bank accounts and put liens on any personal property, she said.

Kingston said there can be downsides to participating in a program with a debt settlement company and not everyone is a good candidate.

“Debt settlement only works for people who have the money to make payments,” she said. “A lot of people end up being sued because they can’t find the money to settle the debts.”

For example, she said, if someone owes Citibank, Discover and Chase but only has the money to settle with one creditor, other creditors can sue them.

Then, she says, debt settlement companies aren’t able to settle all debts, and there are times when creditors don’t work with the settlement company.

Also, be aware that when debts are settled, it may mean a tax bill.

You will receive a 1099-C for any canceled debt over $500, he said. This means that you could have tax consequences at the end of the year.

“For example, if a person owes $10,000 and the creditor and debtor settle for $6,000, the debtor may have tax consequences on the forgiven amount of $4,000,” he said. she declared.

Talk to professionals who can review the details of your debt and financial situation to help you choose the right path for you.

Send your questions to [email protected].

Karin Price Mueller writes the Bamboos column for NJ Advance Media and is the founder of NJMoneyHelp.com. Follow NJMoneyHelp on Twitter @NJMoneyHelp. To find NJMoneyHelp on Facebook. Register for NJMoneyHelp.comit is weekly e-newsletter.

NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION TO U.S. NEWS WIRE SERVICES OR FOR DISTRIBUTION IN THE UNITED STATES

Calgary, Alberta, Canada, Oct. 24, 2022 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Volt Carbon Technologies Inc. (“Volt“or the”Company”) (TSX-V: VCT) is pleased to announce that the Company has agreed to settle an outstanding debt in the amount of US$188,464.25 (C$241,686.55) (the “Debt”) due to an arm’s length creditor by issuing a total of 2,843,371 ordinary shares in the capital of the Company (the “Common Shares”) at a price of $0.085 per common share (the “Actions for Debt Transaction”). The Board of Directors has determined that it is in the best interests of the Company to settle outstanding debt through the issuance of common shares in order to preserve the Company’s liquidity for day-to-day operations.

Closing of the equity-for-borrowing transaction is subject to customary closing conditions, including the prior approval of the TSX Venture Exchange. The Company intends to close the Share Purchase Transaction as soon as possible after receiving approval from the TSX Venture Exchange. The Common Shares to be issued pursuant to the Share Purchase Transaction will be subject to a hold period of four (4) months and one (1) day from the date of issue.

On behalf of the Board of Directors
Volt Carbon Technologies Inc.
Dr. William Pfaffenberger, Chairman of the Board, CEO and President

Information :
Email: [email protected]
Tel: (250) 381-6181

Neither the TSX Venture Exchange nor its Regulation Services Provider (as that term is defined in the policies of the TSX Venture Exchange) accepts responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this release.

FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS: This press release contains forward-looking statements, within the meaning of applicable securities laws, regarding the business and affairs of Volt. In some cases, forward-looking statements can be identified by the use of words such as ”plans”, ”expects” or ”does not expect”, ”intends” ” budget”, ”planned”, ”estimates”, ”plans”, ”intends”, ”anticipates” or variations of these words and expressions or declares that certain actions, events or results ”may”, ”could”, ”would”, ”might” or ”would”, ”occur” or ”would be achieved”.

These forward-looking statements are based on current data expectations, and are naturally subject to uncertainties and changes in circumstances which could cause actual results to differ materially. Although Volt believes that the expectations expressed in these forward-looking statements are reasonable, there can be no assurance that such expectations will prove to be correct. These statements include statements regardingI) the receipt of the approval of the Debt Equity Transaction from the TSX Venture Exchange; and (ii) the expected time of closing of the Shares for the Debt Transaction. Forward-looking statements involve significant risks and uncertainties, should not be construed as guarantees of future performance or results, and will not necessarily be precise indications of whether or not such results will be achieved. A number of factors, including those discussed above, could cause actual results to differ materially from the results discussed in the forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements are expressly qualified in their entirety by this cautionary statement.

All forward-looking statements made in this press release are qualified by these cautionary statements. Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements. Forward-looking information is provided as of the date of this press release, and Volt undertakes no obligation to update or revise it to reflect new events or circumstances, except as required by applicable securities laws.

Will financial markets discipline governments or will governments discipline financial markets? Recent events in the UK seem to provide a clear answer to this question. What clearer proof of the power of the markets do we need than the recent dismissal of the UK Chancellor of the Exchequer in response to the financial market chaos.

On September 23, the UK government’s new chief finance minister announced his mini-budget. The following week, the cost of government borrowing soared as investors dumped UK government bonds.

The cost to the UK government of borrowing sterling for 10 years rose from 3.3% the day before the budget to a peak of 4.6% the following Wednesday. At the same time, the pound has fallen in international markets against most other currencies.

On October 3, the government went back on some of its budget promises. The outsized movement in the price of UK government debt and the pound’s exchange rate appear to be clear examples of how financial markets have disciplined the government of the world’s fifth-largest economy. On October 14, the finance minister was sacked.

If the UK can be so disciplined by the markets, who is safe from having its policy goals derailed by the reluctance of its creditors to fund them?

Behind this simple story of a debtor sanctioned by a creditor, something more complex is happening. As the cost of UK public debt skyrocketed after the budget announcement, the Bank of England was forced to step in to buy that debt and prevent further increases in the cost of borrowing.

The immediate cause of this intervention was a problem in the UK pensions market which forced these funds to further liquidate UK government debt and other assets to post collateral against their derivative positions.

This liquidity crisis for the pensions sector had been triggered by higher interest rates and it forced the Bank of England to cap bond yields to prevent further forced selling and an even higher cost of borrowing for the British government. This intervention by the Bank of England was imposed on it, but it is a clear example of the authorities, in this case the central bank rather than the government, disciplining the markets.

There is a certain level of interest rates that society can live with and there are certain levels that portend poor economic performance and even financial difficulties.

Learning from the consequences of the disastrous UK mini-budget of September 23, when the cost of long-term borrowing approaches 4.5%, the UK authorities will take measures to discipline the financial markets.

Governments are particularly powerful and history shows that it is a debtor who can discipline his creditor.

While the Bank of England’s intervention to reduce the cost of government borrowing focused on liquidity problems in the pension fund industry, behind it was likely an even deeper crisis.

When the government’s cost of borrowing increases, the private sector’s cost of borrowing also increases. Within days of the budget, volatility in the cost of long-term borrowing had made it very difficult for UK financial institutions to price mortgages for UK households. Many mortgage offers were withdrawn and households began to focus on what might happen to their interest costs when financial markets force the cost of government borrowing higher.

In September 2020, it was possible to borrow a two-year fixed mortgage at an annual rate of 1.75%. Bank of England intervention may have reduced government bond yields from 4.7% to 4.1%, but the cost of a two-year fixed mortgage in the UK is now greater than 5.75%.

For those whose last two-year fixed mortgage expires in October, there is now the possibility that their interest expense will increase by more than 200%! The Bank of England may have stepped in to discipline the market, ostensibly to allow pension funds to resolve their liquidity crisis, but the consequences of a continued rise in bond yields for UK households will also have been a key consideration.

We are beginning to establish at what level of interest rates a private sector debt crisis is likely.

The lesson from events in the UK may not be that markets will discipline governments but that since interest rates cannot be allowed to rise any further, the authorities will discipline markets. For savers who lend sterling to the UK government at the new capped rate of 4.0%, they face an erosion in the purchasing power of their savings as UK inflation hits 9.90% .

In a free market, creditors would normally charge an interest rate on their loans that would compensate them for future inflation. The intervention of the Bank of England now forces them to accept a return well below the rate of inflation and, in the opinion of this columnist, this return of 4.0% should remain well below the rate of inflation in the foreseeable future.

The consequence of intervention is that the authorities discipline the markets and that savers pay the price of being forced to lend well below the rate of inflation. Savers are forced to subsidize debtors. The bad news is that it’s not just the UK that can’t live with the consequences of this magnitude of rising long-term interest rates.

In previous columns I have explored the excessive level of debt in the world. Global debt to GDP, of the private and public sectors combined, is now almost certainly well above World War II levels. As we saw in the recessions of 2008 and 2020, the private sector struggles to service this debt when cash flow declines. This led to massive government intervention in both recessions to underwrite private sector credit risk. The result has been that the private sector has chosen to take on more debt, assured that it is now too politically important to fail.

At the end of September, we found out what level of interest rates would disrupt the overleveraged UK economy – a 10-year bond yield of around 4.5%. That this level of bond yields heralds distress is worrying, as the UK has one of the longest-lasting debt burdens in an over-indebted world.

A key indicator for establishing vulnerability to rising interest rates is the debt service ratio (DSR) of the private sector. It measures the percentage of private sector revenue that is used to service debt. When the private sector’s RSD is high, a rise in interest rates is likely to cause the private sector to struggle to service its debts and lead to a debt crisis.

The UK private sector DSR at the end of March 2022, the latest data available, was just 13.3%. Historically, countries’ private sectors have struggled to service their debts when more than 20% of their income is needed and interest rates have risen. The fact that the UK has already found itself in such a position is testament to how quickly the ability to repay debt can evaporate when interest rates rise from historically low levels.

While the Bank of England is already acting to discipline the debt market due to the negative impact of rising rates on the pensions sector and the mortgage market, other countries will soon find themselves in the same position as well. The following countries already had private sector debt service ratios above 20% at the end of March 2022, before the start of the sharp rise in interest rates: Brazil, Canada, China, Denmark, France, Hong Kong, Korea South, Netherlands, Sweden, Turkey.

Of the 19 countries in the developed world for which the Bank for International Settlements publishes private DSRs, only Germany and Italy had better ratios than the UK at the end of March 2022. While the actions of UK authorities suggest that ‘they can’t live with long-term interest rates much higher than 4.0%, there will be many other authorities in the same situation.

If the price is the truth, the Bank of England’s intervention shows that the UK economy cannot handle the key truth which is the cost of borrowing. The central bank can only hold the line on the cost of UK government borrowing for so long.

Regular readers of this column will know that the task of rigging the price of government bonds is likely to be shifted from the central bank to the regulator. If the cost of long-term borrowing is to be brought under control, the regulator will need to force thrift institutions to hold government bonds at yields well below the rate of inflation. Such action is normal in war. In the post-World War II era, it continued for decades as debts ballooned and a more robust financial system could be built.

Private sector DSRs suggest that such intervention to discipline markets will be necessary across the developed world as long-term interest rates rise around or above the 4.0% level. With high inflation, creditors are unlikely to choose to lend their savings to governments at such high interest rates.

The debacle in the UK shows the limits that the authorities can allow creditors to dictate to them.

We are now approaching that period when market forces, especially the market force that determines the cost at which government and the private sector can borrow, will have to be suspended.

Savers will be forced to lend to governments at or around 4.0% when inflation is much higher.

September 2022 will go down in history not as the time when financial markets disciplined governments, but when we set the price at which governments had to discipline financial markets.

TO SHARE: