In UDA Land Sdn Bhd v Puncak Sepakat Sdn Bhd [2020] MLJU 892, the High Court was required to determine whether an award should be set aside because the sole arbitrator (“Arbitrator”) wrongly concluded that it had no jurisdiction to determine a counterclaim and insolvency set-off raised in the arbitration. The High Court set aside the award on the basis that the Arbitrator made an error of law in finding that it had no jurisdiction to hear the counterclaim and set-off.

Background

The latest Court judgment arising from the MF Global UK Ltd ("MF Global") insolvency provides further clarity on how client money entitlements under the FCA's client money rules ("CASS") should be assessed, but is potentially superseded by a key proposal in the FCA's July 2013 Consultation Paper.  In MF Global UK Ltd (No 4) (in special administration); Heis and others v Attestor Value Master Fund LP and another [2013] EWHC 2556 the Court was asked to determine to what extent, an

On 19 April 2013, Justice Foster of the Federal Court of Australia handed down judgment in the case of Eopply New Energy Technology Co Ltd v EP Solar Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 356. The question before his Honour was whether a foreign arbitral award made in China ought to be enforced in Australia against an Australian company in liquidation.

In Ambiente Ufficio S.p.A. and others v Argentine Republic, an ICSID tribunal held that it had general jurisdiction over a multi-party claim commenced by 90 distinct Italian nationals against Argentina in respect of harm said to result from Argentina’s default and later partial restructuring of its sovereign debt. It might at first blush appear that the tribunal’s willingness to admit a 90-party claim is an affirmation of the favourable approach to so-called “mass claims” taken by its “sister tribunal” in Abaclat (and others) v The Argentine Republic.

In the current economic climate, brokers will find the decision of the High Court in Euroption Strategic Fund Limited v Skandinaviska Enskilda Banker AB[2012] EWHC 584 (Comm) of considerable interest, since it considers the duties of a broker who is conducting a close out and liquidating the position of a client who is in a state of default, in this case for failure to meet margin requirements.   

The Court ruled that:

The Supreme Court handed down its judgment in relation to the client money application in the matter of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (LBIE). The judgment has a number of implications for firms who hold client money, and for firms who hold money with banks and other firms as clients themselves. The complicated and controversial nature of the appeal is reflected in the sharply opposing opinions of the Lords in relation to two of the three issues considered.

As many Japanese contractors are exposed to the financial crisis in Dubai, this month our Construction Disputes Avoidance Newsletter focuses on an important recent development concerning Dubai World. At the same time as announcing that the Nakheel sukuk due for repayment on 14 December would be repaid in full, the Dubai government stated that it would pass a reorganisation law for the Dubai World group in case that group is unable to achieve an acceptable restructuring of its remaining obligations. The details of that new law have now been released in the form of Dubai Decree No.