Introduction

Today, the UK Supreme Court considered for the first time the existence, content and engagement of the so-called “creditor duty”: the alleged duty of a company’s directors to consider, or to act in accordance with, the interests of the company’s creditors when the company becomes insolvent, or when it approaches, or is at real risk of, insolvency.

The High Court in London gave judgment on Friday, 3 July 2020 on the relative ranking of over $10 billion of subordinated liabilities in the administrations of two entities in the Lehman Brothers group.

In brief

The Federal Judiciary Council issued on April 27, 2020, the General Resolution 8/2020 on the Work Plan and Contingency Measures in the Jurisdictional Entities as a consequence of the Covid-19 Virus (the "Resolution").

The Resolution establishes that during the period from May 6 to May 31, 2020, only new requests, claims, ancillary proceedings and appeals, i.e. not previously filed, will be processed in urgent cases, regardless of whether they are filed physically or electronically.

On 23 June 2017, a reform to the Federal Criminal Code was enacted to classify the criminal offense of “illegal extrajudicial debt collection” established in article 284 Bis. 

The Mexican insolvency and bankruptcy law (“Ley de Concursos Mercantiles” or “LCM“) that came into effect on May 12, 2000, abrogated the Mexican Bankruptcy and Suspension of Payments Law. One of the stated purposes of the LCM was to mitigate the impact that globalization and the free market had on Mexican corporations, especially after ratification of the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1994. The LCM, therefore, seeks to preserve businesses facing a general default on the payment of their obligations and thereby preserve jobs in Mexico.

The recent decisions in Re MF Global UK Ltd and Re Omni Trustees Ltd give conflicting views as to whether section 236 of the Insolvency Act 1986 has extra-territorial effect. In this article, we look at the reasoning in the two judgments and discuss a possible further argument for extra-territorial effect.

The conflicting rulings on section 236