On 28 April 2016, the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 2010 (Commencement) Order 2016 was made. It provides for the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 2010 (the New Act) to come into force on 1 August 2016.

A party to arbitration or court proceedings in Australia can obtain a freezing order in advance of obtaining a domestic court judgment or arbitration award, in prescribed circumstances. In PT Bayan Resources TBK v BCBC Singapore Pte Ltd [2015]¹ the High Court of Australia has confirmed that Australian courts have the same power to grant freezing orders prior to a judgment or award being obtained in respect of proceedings commenced outside of Australia, provided that judgment or award would be enforceable in Australia.

High profile insolvencies in the construction industry highlight the risks faced by contractors, and also the way in which debtor companies can seek to obtain advantage through ‘forum shopping’ once insolvency occurs, by seeking to invoke the jurisdiction of debtor-friendly countries like the United States.

The High Court has upheld the pari passu principle central to English insolvency legislation when applied to a deceased’s insolvent estate and interpreting legislation stated to be “modified accordingly”. This approach clarifies that foreign currency claims and claims for interest should be calculated for voting purposes as at the date of death, rather than the date an Insolvency Administration Order (IAO) is made. HFW acted for the respondent in this case.

Introduction

In a recent decision of the High Court of Australia (which is the highest appellate court in Australia), a freezing order in respect of a prospective foreign judgment has been unanimously upheld.

This is a significant decision as the High Court has confirmed the validity of prospective freezing orders, a point previously the subject of some uncertainty in Australia, thereby greatly improving the position of parties seeking security in Australia in respect of foreign proceedings.

Background

There is a wide range of precautionary attachment options in the UAE which creditors in the region should take into account.

In general terms, section 110 of the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 (the 2015 Act) amends the provisions of the Company Director Disqualification Act 1986 (the CDDA 1986) in relation to directors’ disqualification.

One of the changes introduced is that the Secretary of State will be able to apply to the court for a compensation order against a director who has been disqualified where creditors have suffered identifiable losses from the director’s misconduct¹.

A recent Western Australian decision has provided guidance on the limits of an insolvent contractor’s ability to enforce an adjudication determination where the principal has an offsetting claim.

4 February 2015 saw Copenship A/S, a significant charterer of bulk vessels, and its subsidiary Copenship Bunkers A/S, file for bankruptcy in the Copenhagen Maritime and Commercial Court.

The bankruptcy of Copenship marks the latest in a series of recent high-profile shipping insolvencies, and with no significant improvement to the bulk market in sight there may well be more to come.

When a company is being wound up in a given jurisdiction, can an anti-suit injunction be sought against relevant creditors or members to prevent them from pursuing proceedings in another jurisdiction with a view to securing priority in the liquidation?

This was the issue for the Privy Council to decide in Stichting Shell Pensioenfonds v Krys and another (British Virgin Islands) (26 November 2014), in what is an interesting instance of the application of anti-suit injunctions within the insolvency framework.

Facts