In the wake of the high profile collapse of the private equity firm Abraaj Capital, the Dubai International Financial Centre (“DIFC”) updated its insolvency regime with the introduction on June 13, 2019 of the new DIFC Insolvency Law (Law No.1 of 2019) (the “DIFC Insolvency Law”).
Disagreeing with the much-critiqued SDNY opinion in Enron, the SDNY bankruptcy court disallowed claims brought by secondary transferees because the original claimants allegedly received millions of dollars in fraudulent transfers and preferences from the Debtors that have not been repaid. Deepening the district spilt on the nature of Section 502(d) of the Bankruptcy Code, the Court held that the defense barring fraudulent transfer-tainted claims focuses on claims—not claimants—and cannot be “washed clean” by a subsequent transfer in the secondary market.
With the significant strain placed on market participants as a result of the combined impacts of the global COVID-19 pandemic, the oil price war and the ensuing liquidity and credit crunches, we expect that a number of enterprises in the United Arab Emirates ("UAE") will either be forced to carry out restructurings or otherwise undergo formal court-supervised insolvency processes.
Further to our update to the existing insolvency laws, whilst it appears from the recent government announcement that UK wrongful trading provisions may be retrospectively relaxed from 1 March for a three month period, directors should continue to have regard to their individual conduct, particularly given the increase of claims funded by the growing litigation funding market.
The UK Government has announced changes to the existing UK insolvency laws in order to ease pressure on companies and give them breathing space to trade through the COVID-19 pandemic.
Key Takeaways |
Hunt (as Liquidator of Systems Building Services Group Limited) v Michie and Others [2020] EWHC 54 (Ch)
On 21 January 2020 ICC Judge Barber handed down a decision which considered, in what is believed to be a first, the question of whether director’s duties survive the insolvency of a Company.
Confirmation of a Chapter 11 plan generally requires the consent of each impaired class of creditors. A debtor can “cramdown” a plan over creditor dissent, however, as long as at least one class of impaired claims accepts the plan.
The consequences of an order or judgement being final or interlocutory are enormous. An order from an interlocutory order requires leave since these orders are not appealable as of right. In addition, a failure to obtain leave may result in the issue becoming moot. This is especially so when motions to lift the stay are involved: if the motion is denied and is not immediately appealable, by the time the case is concluded, the issues will most likely be moot.