In brief

The UAE has issued Federal Law No. 48 of 2023 in relation to insolvency (the "New Insolvency Law"), which replaces Federal Law No. 9 of 2016 and comes into effect on 1 May 2024. Although the previous law was more progressive compared to the previous insolvency articles embedded in the old Commercial Code of 1993, at least in relation to the numerous insolvency matters and other protective composition and restructuring witnessed by the courts.

We have set out below some of the key characteristics of the New Insolvency Law:

In brief

In addition to the comprehensive economic support and stimulus program launched by the UAE Central Bank to curb the financial impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, the UAE has introduced radical amendments to the UAE Bankruptcy Law, offering distressed debtors with some level of leniency during these times of economic uncertainty and market disruption caused by circumstances outside of their control.

The UAE has pioneered a new insolvency regime for individuals or natural persons with the issuance of the stand-alone Insolvency Law No. 19 of 2019 (Insolvency Law), which has come to effect as of 30 November 2019.

The Insolvency Law is intended to provide sufficient protections to natural or civil persons who are facing financial distress and are unable to settle their debts, unlike the UAE Bankruptcy Law which regulates commercial companies and individuals considered as traders under the Commercial Transactions Code.

The UAE has pioneered a new insolvency regime for individuals or natural persons with the issuance of the stand-alone Insolvency Law No. 19 of 2019 (Insolvency Law), which has come to effect as of 30 November 2019.

The Insolvency Law is intended to provide sufficient protections to natural or civil persons who are facing financial distress and are unable to settle their debts, unlike the UAE Bankruptcy Law which regulates commercial companies and individuals considered as traders under the Commercial Transactions Code.

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.

The UAE has issued by Decree Federal Law No. (10) of 2018 on Netting (theUAE Netting Law), with the aim of strengthening the regulatory framework for the settlement of obligations arising from qualified financial contracts. Parties to a contract previously relied on Article 183 of Federal Law No. (9) of 2016 on Bankruptcy (the Bankruptcy Law) to settle debts agreed to under a contract, provided that it is within the context of insolvency and that such contract does not fall within the claw-back provisions (Article 168 of the Bankruptcy Law).

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.

The recent decision of the Court of Appeal of Western Australia, Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd v Forge Group Power Pty Ltd (in Liquidation) (Receivers and Managers Appointed) [2018] WASCA 163 provides much needed clarity around the law of set-off. The decision will no doubt help creditors sleep well at night, knowing that when contracting with counterparties that later become insolvent they will not lose their set-off rights for a lack of mutuality where the counterparty has granted security over its assets.