In Tynefield Care Ltd (and others) v the New India Assurance Company Ltd1 the indemnity claims of the insured Claimant companies were dismissed, and policies avoided from inception for breach of the duty of fair presentation under the Insurance Act 2015. The breach related to the insolvency history of one of the de facto or shadow directors of the Claimant companies.
This judgment therefore adds to the post-2015 Act case law considering breach of the duty of fair presentation.
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.
The opening of safeguard or reorganisation proceedings does not automatically terminate a current agreement notwithstanding any contractual clause providing for termination.
Termination by a lessor
The liquidator of UKCloud Ltd (the Company) applied to the court for directions as to whether a debenture granted by the Company created a fixed or floating charge over certain internet protocol (IP) addresses. The lender argued that it had a fixed charge.
Fixed or floating?
Background
The administrators of Toogood International Transport and Agricultural Services Ltd (in administration) issued an application seeking an extension of the administration. Their application also asked the court whether consent to a previous administration extension should have been obtained from a secured creditor which had been paid in full before the extension process.
Once a creditor, always a creditor?
The German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) has clarified the conditions under which incongruent collateral, granted when an insolvency is imminent, can be contested. The burden of proof is placed on the defendant creditor to demonstrate that the action was part of a serious restructuring attempt.
Background
In a recent judgment, the Polish Supreme Court resolved an important question concerning the rights of a creditor to bring legal proceedings after the initiation of bankruptcy proceedings by a debtor.
Legal issue
The Supreme Court considered whether the declaration of a debtor's bankruptcy results in the loss of a creditor's standing to bring a lawsuit to declare a debtor’s attempt to dissipate its assets ineffective (actio pauliana).
What is actio pauliana?
The Austrian Supreme Court recently considered whether the knowledge of a debtor may be attributed to a third party in an avoidance action.
Background
In a recent decision, the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) further outlined the requirements for the avoidance of a transaction under insolvency law on the grounds of wilful disadvantage to creditors pursuant to section 133 of the German Insolvency Code (InsO).
Background
Background
Crabb was the sole director of Courtside Recycling Ltd (Courtside). From 2014 to 2018, Crabb instructed Courtside's accountants to file VAT returns but only provided bank statements for one of the Company's three bank accounts. As a result, the VAT assessments significantly understated Courtside's true VAT liabilities for this period.
Following its own investigation and using transaction information gathered from Courtside's other bank accounts, HMRC issued amended VAT assessments. Courtside was unable to pay its VAT liabilities.