Asset freeze measures enacted by the United Kingdom against designated persons (DPs) can, under certain circumstances, extend to entities “owned or controlled” by DPs. To date, there have been few—and at times partly contradictory—English court cases addressing the “ownership and control” criteria under the UK sanctions regime. The latest judgment in Hellard v OJSC Rossiysky Kredit Bank sought to reconcile the previous guidance provided by the courts in the Mints and Litasco cases.

R (on the application of Palmer) (Appellant) v Northern Derbyshire Magistrates’ Court and another (Respondents) [2023] UKSC 38

On appeal from: [2021] EWHC 3013

An insolvency moratorium first introduced during the COVID-19 pandemic applies to nearly all Russian legal entities, individuals, and sole entrepreneurs, and bans the commencement of insolvency proceedings against Russian obligors.

Now that HMRC has become a preferential creditor for certain debts, other creditors – such as suppliers – could lose out.

Under the Finance Act 2020, from 1 December 2020, HMRC became a preferential creditor in insolvency proceedings. This may have significant impact on what’s left for other creditors.

The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act (CIGA) came into force on 26 June 2020, introducing significant reforms intended to provide breathing space for companies during the coronavirus pandemic.

These measures may be a welcome relief to some struggling companies. However, they could prove problematic for suppliers, who will need to tread especially carefully when dealing with distressed or insolvent companies.

What has CIGA changed?

In response to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, Russia has changed its bankruptcy laws to provide for a moratorium on bankruptcies and a freeze on certain transactions. While the situation is dynamic, these amendments are relevant for ongoing or potential transactions in Russia, as well as a party’s ability to enforce pledges and other types of security interests or to seek other remedies against Russian companies.

This week’s TGIF takes a look at the recent case of Mills Oakley (a partnership) v Asset HQ Australia Pty Ltd [2019] VSC 98, where the Supreme Court of Victoria found the statutory presumption of insolvency did not arise as there had not been effective service of a statutory demand due to a typographical error in the postal address.

What happened?

This week’s TGIF examines a decision of the Victorian Supreme Court which found that several proofs had been wrongly admitted or rejected, and had correct decisions been made, the company would not have been put into liquidation.

BACKGROUND

This week’s TGIF considers Re Broens Pty Limited (in liq) [2018] NSWSC 1747, in which a liquidator was held to be justified in making distributions to creditors in spite of several claims by employees for long service leave entitlements.

What happened?

On 19 December 2016, voluntary administrators were appointed to Broens Pty Limited (the Company). The Company supplied machinery & services to manufacturers in aerospace, rail, defence and mining industries.

This week’s TGIF considers the recent case of Vanguard v Modena [2018] FCA 1461, where the Court ordered a non-party director to pay indemnity costs due to his conduct in opposing winding-up proceedings against his company.

Background

Vanguard served a statutory demand on Modena on 27 September 2017 seeking payment of outstanding “commitment fees” totalling $138,000 which Modena was obliged, but had failed, to repay.