We consider the implications for office-holder claimants of the recent case ofKelmanson v Gallagher & De Weyer [2022] EWHC 395 (Ch).
The case raises interesting points of practice for insolvency practitioners: a director consciously trying to evade or 'game' the statute won't work to prevent office holder recovery, but a sincerely held but mistaken belief on the director's part as to what was being done doing could.
KEY POINTS:
MR DOLLAR BILL LTD V PERSONS UNKNOWN AND OTHERS [2021] EWHC 2718 (Ch)
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]
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?
(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.
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.
Following its approval on 5th August 2021 by the Council of Ministers, the Law-Decree n. 118 was published on 24th August into the G.U. n. 202 about the topic of "Urgent measures in the field of business crises and business reorganisation, as well as further urgent measures in the field of justice".
Firstly, the Law-Decree postpones the entry into force of the Italian Crisis Code until 16th May 2022 (Art. 1, letter a), further postponing to 31 December 2023 the “crisis alert related procedures” introduced by Article 12 of the Crisis Code.
A seguito dell’approvazione avvenuta il 5 agosto 2021 da parte del Consiglio dei ministri, è stato pubblicato il 24 agosto in G.U. n 202 il Decreto-legge n. 118 in tema di “Misure urgenti in materia di crisi d’impresa e di risanamento aziendale, nonché ulteriori misure urgenti in materia di giustizia”.
Il Decreto in primo luogo differisce l’entrata in vigore del Codice della Crisi al 16 maggio 2022 (art. 1, lett. a), posticipando ulteriormente al 31 dicembre 2023 le procedure di allerta della crisi introdotte dall'art. 12 CCI.