In the recent decision of Orexim Trading Limited v Mahavir Port and Terminal Private Limited, the Court of Appeal has ruled that the Court does have power to permit service of a claim under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 outside England and Wales. However, in the circumstances of this case, the Court of Appeal declined to exercise its discretion to grant permission to serve the claim form outside the jurisdiction. HFW acted for the successful First Respondent, Mahavir Port and Terminal Private Limited (MPT).

Background

In a noteworthy decision, the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit overturned a dismissal of a bankruptcy case, which the lower court had dismissed based on its belief that the landlord debtor was receiving rental income from a marijuana dispensary. The decision is significant because it holds that a bankruptcy cannot be dismissed simply because of the mere presence of a marijuana business or related proceeds in the case.

Is your guaranty restricted or continuing? A continuing guaranty gives rise to divisible individual transactions, while a restricted guaranty—one that concerns a contemplated and specified extension of credit—arises upon execution of the guaranty. In bankruptcy, as in life, timing is everything. A debtor’s liability under a prepetition guaranty agreement for a post-petition advance of credit may depend on the distinction between restricted and continuing, and the distinction may be subtle.

Briefings

Navigating the tension between private dispute resolution and insolvency class actions, March 2018

In Lasmos Limited v. Southwest Pacific Bauxite (HK) Limited1, the Hong Kong Court of First Instance dismissed a winding-up petition based on an unsatisfied statutory demand.

Briefings

A recent ruling by the English High Court in BILTA v RBS1, concerning EU Emissions Allowances (“EUAs” or “carbon-credits”) trading has re-opened the debate on when materials forming part of an internal investigation can benefit from litigation privilege. The decision further undermines the restrictive approach taken by Andrews J in SFO v ENRC2 when applying the “sole or dominant purpose test” to dual-purpose communications.

Background – Emissions Trading Fraud

The professional indemnity insurer of an insolvent independent financial adviser (Target) successfully relied on an insolvency exclusion in the policy to deny liability to third party (former) clients of Target1.

In 2005 Target had advised Mr. and Mrs. Crowden to invest £200,000 in a “Secure Income Bond” issued by SLS Capital SA in Luxembourg and Keydata Investment Ltd.2 SLS went into liquidation in 2009.

The High Court has considered a recent Court of Appeal ruling on whether trustees in bankruptcy should be able to deploy privileged documents in the discharge of their duties.

The existing position under Avonwick

The facts of Shlosberg v Avonwick Holdings Limited [2016] EWCA Civ 1138 involved a company called Webinvest. Webinvest was beneficially owned by Mr Shlosberg. Avonwick lent US$100 million to Webinvest, with Mr Shlosberg personally guaranteeing the loan.

This case clarifies that the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010 (the 2010 Act) does not apply retrospectively, such that the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 1930 (the 1930 Act), and only the 1930 Act, will continue to apply in circumstances in which both (i) the insured's insolvency occurred; and (ii) the insured's liability was incurred, prior to 1 August 2016.

The Hong Kong Court of First Instance (CFI) has issued a judgment1 examining the instances in which the Hong Kong courts will exercise their jurisdiction to wind-up a foreign company.

In a welcome decision the CFI has made it clear that, given certain conditions, creditors will be able to enlist the winding-up jurisdiction of the Hong Kong courts in order to exert pressure on foreign companies which refuse to pay their debts.

The English Supreme Court has considered various new categories of creditor claims against a company with unlimited liability in administration where, unusually, there was enough money to pay all creditors and a surplus existed.

In proceedings commonly referred to as the Waterfall I litigation, the Supreme Court considered issues relating to the distribution of funds from the estate of Lehman Brothers International Europe (in administration) (LBIE), in circumstances where there was a surplus of assets amounting to approximately £8 billion.