The FTX Group, an international cryptocurrency exchange platform, spectacularly collapsed in November 2022, resulting in FTX Trading Limited and 101 affiliated companies filing for relief under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court in Delaware. The Australian arm of the FTX group, FTX Australia Pty Ltd (‘FTX Aust’) and FTX Express Pty Ltd (‘FTX Express’) (collectively the ‘Companies’) was placed into administration in Australia shortly before the Chapter 11 filing.

This recent interlocutory decision in The Deposit Guarantee Fund for Individuals (" the DGF") v Bank Frick & Co AG ("Bank Frick") & Anor deals another blow to the DGF in its recent attempts to pursue claims in England which allegedly arise following the 2014-15 banking crisis in Ukraine.

Background

On Tuesday 24 March 2020 the Commonwealth Parliament passed emergency laws responding to the COVID 19 Pandemic. [1]

Critically the Government has enacted amendments to the Corporations Act 2001 (Act):

Representatives of a lender on a board will not automatically impose directors' duties on the lender, but they may apply where a director's specific instructions have led directly to a breach of fiduciary duty. The High Court recently explored this issue in an appeal in the case of Standish v Royal Bank of Scotland plc.⁽¹⁾

Facts

With two decisions (No. 1895/2018 and No. 1896/2018), both filed on 25 January 2018, the Court of Cassation reached opposite conclusions in the two different situations

The case

The Constitutional Court (6 December 2017) confirmed that Art. 147, para. 5, of the Italian Bankruptcy Law does not violate the Constitution as long as it is interpreted in a broad sense

The case

With the decision No. 1195 of 18 January 2018, the Court of Cassation ruled on the powers of the extraordinary commissioner to require performance of pending contracts and on the treatment of the relevant claims of the suppliers

The case

The Court of Cassation with a decision of 25 September 2017, No. 22274 confirms that Art. 74 of the Italian Bankruptcy Law provides a special rule, which does not apply to cases to which it is not explicitly extended

The case

With the decision No. 1649 of 19 September 2017 the Court of Appeals of Catania followed the interpretation according to which a spin-off is not subject to the avoiding powers of a bankruptcy receiver

The case

Applicable law