Given the nature of their businesses, shipping companies may be involved as respondents in arbitration proceedings in different jurisdictions. As arbitrations tend to be lengthy procedures, a claimant to such proceedings may want to explore whether there are any quicker routes they can take to recover their losses. One such option they might consider is bringing a winding up petition against the company.

The slide and volatility in the oil price over the past few months has been dramatic and whilst many companies will be well positioned to weather the current climate, it has  already become clear that there are some players in the industry for whom insolvency is a very real  risk.

First publised in CRI

With the current financial difficulties faced by the oil & gas industry, directors of companies incorporated in England and Wales must be mindful of their duties and responsibilities to the company as well as the potential personal liability that could arise from breaching those duties and responsibilities in the context of an insolvency.

Who qualifies as a director?

Court of Appeal orders disclosure in relation to freezing order and cross-undertaking from a liquidator

A party with a statutory right to an admiralty claim in rem, which had issued its claim after the Admiralty court had ordered the sale of a vessel, did not lose its right to enforce the  claim¹. The claim in rem could be enforced against the sale proceeds provided that the person  liable in personam was the beneficial owner of the sale proceeds.

Facts

The High Court ruling in Schroder Exempt Property Unit Trust and another v Birmingham City Council [2014] EWHC 2207 provides helpful clarification on whether or not a landlord is liable  to pay business rates on an empty property following the liquidation of a tenant and the subsequent  disclaimer of the lease.

Background

The U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has denied certiorari to petitioners alleging that Aaroma Holdings LLC is liable for personal injury claims stemming from the use of diacetyl by Emoral Inc., which declared bankruptcy in 2011 after Aaroma bought its assets in 2010. Diacetyl Plaintiffs v. Aaroma Holdings LLC, No. 14-71 (U.S., cert. denied November 3, 2014). The petitioners had argued that freeing Aaroma from liability would create a loophole for companies looking to avoid tort liability by encouraging them to sell assets before filing for bankruptcy.

A divided Third Circuit Court of Appeals panel has reversed a district court ruling dismissing a shareholder’s lawsuit against individuals and a liquidating trustee involved in the dissolution of a biotechnology company and the liquidation of its assets. Schmidt v. Skolas, No. 13-3750 (3d Cir., decided October 17, 2014).

In a petition for a writ of certiorari, plaintiffs alleging harm by exposure to the flavoring agent diacetyl have argued that the Third Circuit erred in ruling that Aaroma Holdings cannot be held liable for the actions of diacetyl producer Emoral Inc., which Aaroma purchased following the alleged exposures. Diacetyl Plaintiffs v. Aaroma Holdings, No. 14-71 (U.S., petition for writ of certiorari filed July 18, 2014).