In the case of Anchorage Capital Master Offshore Ltd v Sparkes (No 3); Bank of Communications Co Ltd v Sparkes (No 2) [2021] NSWSC 1025 (Anchorage v Sparkes), the Supreme Court of NSW considered the obligations of company officers to sophisticated commercial lending entities, and whether company officers could be personally liable for making misleading statements.
Significance
This week, the Ninth Circuit takes a close look at a sizable antitrust jury award, and explains what constitutes a tax “return” for purposes of bankruptcy law.
OPTRONIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC v. NINGBO SUNNY ELECTRONIC CO. LTD.
The Court held that sufficient evidence supported a jury verdict holding telescope manufacturers liable for antitrust violations.
This update summarises the latest jurisprudence on insolvent schemes of arrangement (schemes) and restructuring plans (RPs), and provides an overview of the key themes that are emerging in this area.
Key Concepts and Notes
This week, the Ninth Circuit explains the ins-and-outs of property abandonment under the Bankruptcy Code, and explores the government’s privilege to withhold the identity of informants in discovery.
On 20 October 2021, the Supreme Court of Appeal (“the SCA”) handed down a judgement in the matter of JP Markets v FSCA (Case no 460/2021) [2021] ZASCA 148 (20 October 2021) in terms of which the SCA set aside the decision of the High Court to place JP Markets (Pty) Ltd (“JP Markets”) into liquidation, finding that it was not just and equitable.
In a landmark bankruptcy case judgment issued on 10 October 2021 the Dubai Court of First Instance has held the directors and managers of an insolvent Dubai-based PJSC to be personally liable to pay the outstanding debts of the previously listed company (now in liquidation) pursuant to the UAE Bankruptcy Law. This decision represents a very significant milestone in the UAE insolvency landscape since the enactment of the Bankruptcy Law in late 2016, being the first known instance of a case where such personal liability has been ordered.
Many investors, including PE firms, are waiting with bated breath to see how the UK economy, currently dependent on COVID-19-related government support, will respond once that stimulus is withdrawn. An increase in UK company insolvencies is expected, creating opportunities for savvy investors to acquire businesses at bargain prices, while at the same time appearing to be white knights swooping in to save a beloved high street brand or large regional employer.
On 8 July 2021, the Payment and Electronic Money Institution Insolvency Regulations 2021 (the Regulations) will come into force in the UK and introduce a new special administration regime for insolvent payment institutions (PIs) and electronic money institutions (EMIs). The key purposes of the Regulations are to ensure that, if a PI or EMI becomes insolvent (and/or it is fair or expedient to put the institution into special administration), funds are quickly returned to customers and any shortfalls in the amounts available are minimised.
On 9 June 2021, the Dubai Court of Cassation adopting a restrictive interpretation of the UAE Federal Law No 11 of 1992 and its amendments (the Civil Procedure Code) has added a requirement for the success of a debt recovery claim through a payment order application to the summary judge: there must be written evidence that the debt was either accepted or acknowledged by the debtor. This article provides an overview of the legal requirements of the payment order claim and what this new requirement of the Dubai Court of Cassation means for creditors in Dubai.
In dismissing Darty Holdings SAS’ (“Darty”) appeal in a recent decision[1], Miles J. has confirmed that an English court will look at the actual relationship between the parties involved, rather than the wider context, when considering whether those parties are connected. This will be the case even where the wider context consists of a transaction that will, immediately following the relevant transaction, sever that relationship.