(1) Citicorp Trustee Company Limited and (2) Golden Belt Sukuk Company BSC v. (1) Maan Al-Sanea and (2) Saad Trading, Contracting and Financial Services Co [2017] EWHC 2845 (Comm)

In this case, the High Court considered whether valid service had been effected upon two defendants based outside of the jurisdiction who had shown no willingness to be involved in the proceedings.

Like any other business, law firms sometimes fail. While the failures of large law firms are well-publicized, smaller law firms can be just as or even more susceptible to failure, as the unexpected departure of the firm’s most profitable partner can be devastating to a small firm.

Shortly after the last ever Monarch Airlines flight landed at Manchester Airport in the early hours of Monday morning, the airline entered administration, prompting the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) to launch its "biggest ever peacetime repatriation" to bring home the 110,000 Monarch customers stranded abroad.

The impact on those travellers should be minimal, but an estimated 750,000 customers' future flights and holidays have been cancelled. Where they stand primarily comes down to whether their booking is protected by the UK's Air Travel Organisers' Licence (ATOL) scheme.

The Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims comes into force on 1 October 2017. This note deals with the key elements to be aware of.

Applicability

While the Protocol is named the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims the first thing to note is that it only applies to businesses claiming payment of debts from an individual (including individual sole traders) and does not apply to business-to-business debts.

Generally speaking, the most appropriate jurisdiction in which to wind up a company is the jurisdiction where the company is incorporated, and the jurisdiction to wind up a foreign company has often been described as exorbitant or as usurping the functions of the courts of the country of incorporation.

The case of Wing Hong Construction Limited v Hui Chi Yung and Ors [2017] HKEC 1173 provides an overview of the legal principles which apply to an application for security for costs, where the Plaintiff against whom security is sought is a company and the application is made under section 905 of the Companies Ordinance (Cap 622). This was an appeal against the decision of a Master who had dismissed the Defendant’s application for security for costs against the Plaintiff which was a private company in liquidation. The appeal was allowed and security for costs of HK$2 million ordered.

In Re Lucky Resources (HK) Ltd [2016] 4 HKLRD 301, Hong Kong’s Court of First Instance had to consider the question of whether an arbitration award could be enforced by winding up the company against which the award had been made, without first applying for leave to enforce the award under section 84 of the Arbitration Ordinance (Cap 609). The Court answered that question in the affirmative.

New Federal Law No. 266-FZ dated 29 July 2017 (the Amendment Law) introduces notable changes to Russia’s insolvency rules. Importantly, the law does away with the original provisions on vicarious liability of controlling persons in RF Law No. 127-FZ on Insolvency of 26 October 2002 (the Insolvency Law). The Amendment Law expands this concept in a series of new clauses. The rules came into force 30 July 2017.

This update deals with “onerous property” and the issues involved when a trustee in bankruptcy disclaims onerous land, including the potential impact on lenders.

Disclaimer of onerous land by a trustee in bankruptcy

At any time, the trustee of a bankrupt estate may disclaim land which is burdened with onerous covenants or is unsaleable or not readily saleable (s 133 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth)).

LBI EHF (in winding up) v. Raiffeisen Zentralbank Österreich AG and Raiffeisen Bank International AG [2017] EWHC 522 (Comm)