Individuals undergo bankruptcy proceedings for many reasons, chief among them to seek relief from their debts and obtain a fresh financial start. However, the opportunity for a fresh start can be limited when the bankrupt’s debts arise from securities fraud. In the Supreme Court of Canada’s recent decision in Poonian v.

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 inter-relationship between disputed debts, arbitration agreements and winding up proceedings has come up again this time before the Privy Council in Sian Participation Corp (In Liquidation) v Halimeda International Ltd [2024] UKPC 16. In delivering this important judgment, the Privy Council looked closely at the dividing line between two areas of public policy, namely insolvency and arbitration.

Background

Corporate governance practices are truly put to the test in two instances: 1) the commencement of litigation; and 2) entry into the zone of insolvency. The latter (distressed circumstances) increases the likelihood of the former (claims against directors and officers).

When distressed circumstances do arise, it is critical to ensure that best practices are in place and adhered to. Often, there may be little time in a crisis to consider and adopt new governance practices given the speed at which events may unfold. Directors need to get it right, and quickly.

Since the pandemic, during which insolvency rates were low due to Government measures, there has been a considerable rise in insolvencies in the UK and many other jurisdictions. High interest rates have significantly increased the cost of borrowing and many companies are saddled with mountains of debt that was taken out in better times and which are now difficult to repay. In addition, high inflation and energy costs, lower consumer confidence and volatile supply chains have all contributed to making the last few years very difficult for businesses.

Fund sponsors continue to face a challenging fundraising market and many are sensitive to increasing investor demand for liquidity. Higher interest rates and public market dislocation continue to make capital-raising difficult, while decreased fund distributions are limiting capital available for new commitments, leading investors to prioritize liquidity and invest cautiously.

The Court of King’s Bench of Alberta (the Court) recently revisited the stringent boundaries on the types of claims that can be brought against court-appointed officers. The decision in North v Davison, 2024 ABKB 242 (the Decision) highlighted the protective measures that courts employ to safeguard the integrity and function of receivership proceedings against unfounded or speculative claims. In the Decision, the Court struck down a counterclaim against Ernst & Young Inc.

The adage ‘there is no such thing as a free lunch’ rings true for the 831 company directors disqualified in 2023/24 for abusing the Covid financial support scheme.

In this guide, we explain what to do when you no longer need a company that has been incorporated or registered in the British Virgin Islands (Company). Assuming the Company is solvent, you have two options: (1) arrange for the Company to be voluntarily liquidated and dissolved (Liquidated); or (2) leave (or apply for) the Company to be administratively struck-off and dissolved (Administratively Dissolved). For the reasons set out below, we usually recommend a Company is Liquidated, rather than Administratively Dissolved.

Appeals under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA) generally result in an automatic stay of the order under appeal—a potentially costly and disruptive outcome. Accordingly, the BIA requires by default that an interested party first seek leave to appeal a lower court decision unless its appeal meets a set of prescribed circumstances that appears broad but, in practice, has been construed very narrowly by the courts (i.e., making it difficult to obtain leave to appeal). In Peakhill Capital Inc. v.