Bloomberg reported last month that the Madoff bankruptcy has one more big case to go, chasing USD3.2b held by foreign banks (see our related story above). Mr Picard, the bankruptcy trustee, has reportedly recovered over USD14b of the USD17.5b in losses arising from Madoff's Ponzi scheme.

In what is likely to be the final chapter in the Ross Asset Management (RAM) liquidation, assuming no appeal is filed, the High Court has considered an application for directions by the liquidators of Ross Asset Management concerning how best to distribute recovered funds.  David Ross operated RAM as a Ponzi scheme for decades until the fraud was uncovered in 2012 and the company went into liquidation.  Mr Ross is currently serving a ten year plus term of imprisonment for his role as architect of the scheme.

DD Growth Premium 2X Fund (the Company), was a Cayman Islands Ponzi scheme that concealed vast trading losses by attributing fanciful values to worthless bonds. As the GFC unfolded in 2008, RMF Market Neutral Strategies Limited (RMF) redeemed US$23m for its shares in the Company (the Payment). The Company was placed in liquidation a short time later and the Company's liquidators sought to claw the Payment back.

In Akers & Ors v Samba Financial Group (Rev 1) [2017] UKSC 6, the UK Supreme Court confirmed that British insolvency officers can only void dispositions of a company's assets held on trust in certain circumstances. 

The liquidators of Marathon Imaging Limited (Marathon) brought a claim against the company's director, Mr Greenhill, for a prejudicial disposition of property under section 346 of the Property Law Act 2007 and a breach of director's duties under the Companies Act 1993.  Marathon had begun defaulting on its tax commitments from 2008 onwards and became insolvent shortly after.  The Greenhill Family Trust (Trust), a secured creditor of Marathon, appointed receivers and the Commissioner of Inland Revenue had Marathon placed into liquidation just three days later.

The liquidators of two Cayman Island companies obtained orders under s 195(3) of the Bermudan Companies Act 1981 for PwC, as the companies' auditor, to provide information and documents to the liquidators. PwC decided to appeal but, in the meantime, did US$250,000 of preparatory work necessary to enable compliance, if required, with the orders.

As a result of the appeal, both orders were set aside. In PricewaterhouseCoopers v SAAD Investments Co Ltd & Anor (Bermuda) PwC applied to recover from the liquidators the costs of preparing to comply with the orders.

In Havenleigh Global Services Ltd and FM Custodians Ltd v Henderson, relating to the bankruptcy of David Henderson, the Official Assignee had issued a notice under section 171 of the Insolvency Act to Xero for the provision of company records.  Associate Judge Osborne prohibited publication of a ruling about the lawfulness of the notice pending the public examination of Mr Henderson and judgment.  The Official Assignee applied for directions allowing publication because the prohibition prevented Xero from commenting on media articles about how it responded to the not

In Purewal v Countrywide Residential Lettings Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 1122, the receivers of a property did not make an insurance claim in relation to damage to the property.  The mortgagor of the property (a bankrupt) repaired the property himself.  He brought an action against the receivers for breach of duty by failing to make an insurance claim, claiming damages for the cost of the repairs.

In our December 2010 and April 2011 insolvency updates, we reported on the UK High Court and Court of Appeal decisions in BNY Corporate Trustee Services Limited v Eurosail. The issue before both Courts was whether Eurosail was insolvent by virtue of being unable to pay its debts under the balance sheet limb of the solvency test in section 123 of the UK Insolvency Act 1986. The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court decision that Eurosail was solvent, noting that it had not reached the "point of no return".

Tegel sought summary judgment against Mr and Mrs Arnensen as guarantors of the obligations of Coastal Cuisine NZ Limited (In Receivership). The Arnensen's argued (in reliance on the equitable doctrine of marshalling) that Tegel ought not to be allowed to pursue the guarantees until the receivership of Coastal Cuisine had run its course.