In a significant recent judgment, the ADGM Court has clarified that it has jurisdiction to hear an action for fraudulent trading against the former directors of an onshore UAE company.

By way of background, NMC Healthcare LTD (NMC), and its various subsidiaries, were incorporated in onshore UAE. On 17 September 2020, NMC was redomiciled as an ADGM company. Shortly thereafter, on 27 September 2020, NMC was put into administration pursuant to the ADGM Insolvency Regulations 2015 and joint administrators (the Joint Administrators) appointed.

Over the past year or so, we have seen a number of examples of Dubai Courts taking an extremely cautious approach to handling debtor-led bankruptcy cases, particularly in relation to determining whether there is a legitimate distressed financial position and enquiring as to the conduct of managers leading to the bankruptcy of companies.

On 9 June 2021, the Dubai Court of Cassation adopting a restrictive interpretation of the UAE Federal Law No 11 of 1992 and its amendments (the Civil Procedure Code) has added a requirement for the success of a debt recovery claim through a payment order application to the summary judge: there must be written evidence that the debt was either accepted or acknowledged by the debtor. This article provides an overview of the legal requirements of the payment order claim and what this new requirement of the Dubai Court of Cassation means for creditors in Dubai.

On 22 October 2020, the UAE government made various changes to the UAE Bankruptcy Law*, including the concept of Emergency Financial Crisis (EFC). Subsequently, on 10 January 2021, the UAE Cabinet declared the existence of an EFC in the UAE. In this article, Partners Michael Morris and Keith Hutchison explore how this declaration may impact on debtors and creditors.

Emergency Financial Crisis

One of the key changes implemented was a power given to the UAE Cabinet to declare an EFC. An EFC is defined as:

The Supreme Court in Sevilleja v Marex Financial Ltd [2020] UKSC 31 has brought much needed clarity to the legal basis and scope of the so-called ‘reflective loss’ principle. The effect of the decision is a ‘bright line’ rule that bars claims by shareholders for loss in value of their shares arising as a consequence of the company having suffered loss, in respect of which the company has a cause of action against the same wrong-doer.

A recent decision of the High Court of New Zealand provides helpful guidance for insolvency practitioners on how aspects of the voluntary administration regime should operate in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

On 30 March 2020, the board of directors of EncoreFX (NZ) Limited resolved to appoint administrators to the company. By then, New Zealand was already at Level 4 on the four-level alert system for COVID-19.

Recent court service suspensions announced in the UAE – albeit temporary – as part of the government's response to COVID-19 will undoubtedly have an impact on efficacy of debt recovery options available to creditors, at least in the near short term. These measures come at a time when payment default rates are only expected to increase rapidly and creditors will be looking at what actions they can and should take to protect their position, including short and medium term strategies.

The UK Court of Appeal has held that legal privilege outlasts the dissolution of a company in Addlesee v Dentons Europe LLP [2019] EWCA Civ 1600.

Legal advice privilege applies to communications between a client and its lawyers. The general rule is that those communications cannot be disclosed to third parties unless and until the client waives the privilege.

The High Court in DHC Assets Ltd v Arnerich [2019] NZHC 1695 recently considered an application under s 301 of the Companies Act (the Act) seeking to recover $1,088,156 against the former director of a liquidated company (Vaco). The plaintiff had a construction contract with Vaco and said it had not been paid for all the work it performed under that contract.

Regan v Brougham [2019] NZCA 401 clarifies what is needed to establish a valid guarantee.

A Term Loan Agreement was entered into whereby Christine Regan and Mark Tuffin lent $50,000 to B & R Enterprises Ltd. Rachael Dey and Bryce Brougham were named as Guarantors. Bryce Brougham was the only guarantor to sign the agreement. The Company was put into liquidation and a demand made against the Guarantor.

The guarantor argued that the guarantee was not enforceable based on the following: