The decision of the Supreme Court of 20 April 2017, No. 9983 confirms that the bank can be held jointly liable with the directors towards the company, on different grounds from those making the bank accountable to individual creditors

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.

According to decision no. 17441, of 31 August 2016, of the First Division of the Supreme Civil Court, the liability of directors without management power cannot originate from a general failure to supervise – that would be identified in the facts as a strict liability – but must be attributed to the breach of the duty to act in an informed way, on the basis of both information to be released by executive directors and information that non-executive directors can gather on their own initiative.

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

The Court of Florence (November 2, 2016) confirmed that the debtor can retain part of his assets, with a view to support the company’s recovery and in derogation to principles of liability of the debtor.

The case

A company applied for concordato preventivo, based on a plan providing for, on one side, the sale of those assets not functional to the business and, on the other side, the company to continue to trade retaining those other assets which were needed for the activities to be carried on.

A ruling of the Court of Padua of 31 December 2016 is compared with few other known Court decisions regarding the extension of the effects of a debt restructuring agreement to dissenting financial creditors

The case

Two companies having an indebtedness mainly towards banks and leasing companies, jointly submitted to the Court a request for confirmation of a debt restructuring agreement providing for a two-year moratorium of payment of principal and a restructuring of interests.

The Court of Cassation (decision No. 4915 of 27 February 2017) lowered the threshold allowing the Bankruptcy Court to review the feasibility of the concordato preventivo proposal.

The case

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.