The new United Arab Emirates (UAE) Insolvency Law (Federal Law No.9 of 2016) (Insolvency Law) was published in the UAE Gazette on 29 September 2016 and came in to force three months later on 29 December 2016. The Insolvency Law is a federal law that applies to all seven emirates comprising the UAE. The initial view from market participants is that by replacing the old insolvency law, which placed a greater emphasis on creditor protections and formal bankruptcy proceedings alongside criminal penalties, the Insolvency Law is an overdue but welcome development.

At first glance, it seems that cross-border insolvencies between the UK and EU are likely to become more time-consuming, complex and expensive post-Brexit. However, the situation may not be as dire as it first appears due to the existence of alternative legislation and the exemptions to the EU legislation. As with other areas of law, when it comes to insolvencies much will depend on what steps are taken to maintain the current arrangements with the EU or whether they fall away altogether.

Court refuses application for pre-action disclosure of insurance policy

The High Court has refused an application for pre-action disclosure of the public liability insurance policy of a company that, if litigation were pursued against it, was likely to become insolvent.

Background

A draft bill on amendment to the Bankruptcy Code (Act XLIX of 1991 on bankruptcy proceedings and liquidation proceedings) was introduced into the Parliament on 12 April 2017 and is currently under review. If the draft bill was approved and published, the new rules would be applicable to the new liquidation proceedings and to new management liability related lawsuits. Lawmakers would grant a 2-month period to prepare for the changes.

Key areas for change are:

1. Fiduciary security interests would be elevated to the same level as pledge-type security

The recent Amendment on the Czech Insolvency Act (the “Amendment”) enters into force on 1 July 2017.

The Amendment states that a creditor is entitled to be satisfied from its security even when its contingent or future claim (such as bank guarantee) becomes actual after the start of the security provider’s insolvency.

The new Amendment on the Czech Insolvency Act (the “Amendment”) will enter into force on 1 July 2017.

The Amendment introduces a “liquidity gap” test, which will be used when a debtor (entrepreneur) needs to determine whether it is considered insolvent or not. The liquidity gap is the difference between a debtor’s due debts and its readily available funds. A debtor will only be considered insolvent if the liquidity gap is higher than 10% of its overdue debts.

Issue 6 | April 2017 Disputes Digest 2 | Disputes Digest Corporate counsel’s guide to the key cases of 2016 (litigation) Corporate counsel’s guide to the key cases of 2016 (arbitration) Singapore targets effi ciency in investment arbitration proceedings Does the MasterCard class action mark the dawn of a new era in UK litigation?

Briefings

The latest victims of the prolonged downturn in the offshore, marine and oil and gas sectors, Singapore-based Ezra Holdings and EMAS, have sought Chapter 11 protection with the US bankruptcy courts. Whilst it is as yet unclear whether these companies will “go under”, this briefing sets out the latest events and key issues affecting operators who may find themselves dealing with counterparties in similar insolvency proceedings and financial difficulties.

Background

Privilege – post Hastie

The New South Wales Court of Appeal decision in Hastie Group (In Liq.) v Moore1 underlines the view that disclosure of the mere existence of privileged documents to third parties will not necessarily waive privilege.

Key Facts

The liquidators of Hastie Group Ltd (In Liq.) (Hastie) had obtained orders extending the time for service of a statement of claim alleging professional negligence against Hastie’s Auditor, Deloitte (Auditor), between 2008 and 2010.

This case arose from an underlying claim by a company called Mploy against Denso, which resulted in an adverse costs order against Mploy.