Federal Decree Law No (16) of 2021 (Factoring Law) was issued on 29 August 2021 and came into effect on 7 December 2021. The Factoring Law, whilst laying a legislative framework for a rapidly expanding trade finance industry in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), also provided much needed clarity from, and an update to, Federal Law No (4) of 2020 (Moveables Law) and Federal Law No (1) 1987 (Civil Code).
New entrants to the trade finance market
Salem Mohammed Ballama Altamimi & ors v Emirates NBD Bank PJSC, HSBC Bank Middle East Limited, ICICI Bank UK Plc and others [2021] DIFC CFI 085 [1]
© 2022 Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP. In some jurisdictions, this publication may be considered attorney advertising. Past representations are no guarantee of future outcomes. 1 | Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP paulweiss.com FEBRUARY 2022 | ISSUE NUMBER 1 Restructuring Department Bulletin Ken Ziman has joined Paul, Weiss as a Partner in the Restructuring Department Resident in Paul, Weiss’s New York office, Mr.
According to a recent decision by the High Court in R (on the application of Palmer) v Northern Derbyshire Magistrates Court, an Administrator is an officer of a company in administration for the purpose of collective redundancy rules.
This means an Administrator can be prosecuted personally for failing to notify the Insolvency Service of collective redundancies being made by the company in administration.
Background law
Claims are just another asset of the insolvency practitioner: to gather in and realise for creditors’ benefit.
Success in managing insolvency estate claims however, is all about effective risk management. As a speculative contingent asset, the risks involved in handling claims as assets are greater and this risk requires constant evaluation as the claim progresses. Here are 6 issues to have under control throughout.
1. RECOVERABILITY – WHERE IS THE MONEY?
On August 5, 2021, the Eighth Circuit reversed a district court’s decision to dismiss a confirmation order appeal as equitably moot.[1] The doctrine of equitable mootness can require dismissal of an appeal of a bankruptcy court decision – typically, an order confirming a chapter 11 plan – on equitable grounds when third parties have engaged in significant irreversible transactions
(Promontoria (Oak) Ltd v Emanuel; Emanuel v Promontoria (Oak) Ltd; Promontoria (Henrico) Ltd v Samra; Promontoria (Chestnut) Ltd v Simpson & Anor; Bibby Invoice Discounting Ltd v Thompson Facilities and Project Management Services Ltd & Anor)
Introduction
This morning, the Court of Appeal has handed down landmark guidance on how far a defendant in litigation can look under the bonnet of their pursuer's commercial transactional documents and check out the mechanical parts of a deal to which the defendant is not party.
On October 5, 2021, the Tenth Circuit joined the Second Circuit in concluding statutory fee increases that applied only to debtors filing for bankruptcy in judicial districts administered by the United States Trustee Program (the “US Trustee” or the “UST Program”) violated the U.S.
In our previous commentary, we concluded that the ‘The Administration (Restrictions on Disposal etc. to Connected Persons) Regulations 2021’ (Regulations) had enacted a tick-box exercise for experienced market participants.
As a matter of practice, chapter 11 plans and confirmation orders routinely discharge administrative expense claims, including those that arise after confirmation of a plan but before its effective date. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (the “Third Circuit”) recently affirmed the bankruptcy court’s statutory authority to do so in Ellis v. Westinghouse Electric Co., LLC, 2021 WL 3852612 (3d Cir. Aug. 30, 2021).