Ministerial Decisions
Ministry of Manpower
Ministerial Decision No. 187/2017
Continuing the suspension of permits for the temporary recruitment of non-Omani manpower in certain professions. Permits are to be suspended for salesmen/marketing professionals and purchasing representatives, as specified in MD 608/2013 and MD 381/2016. The suspension period is to be extended by a further 6 months with effect from 1 June.
Issued on 29 May 2017.
Ministerial Decision No. 188/2017
Legal Developments
Potential hourly wage system
The Ministry of Labor and Social Development (MOL) is discussing a potential new employment system for Saudi employees named “Flexible Work” (Flexible Work). Flexible Work will be a system whereby an employee may be paid an hourly wage on a weekly basis in arrears, and various entitlements currently required under the Labor Law for conventional employees would not be required, such as:
The recent case of M Webster Holdings Pty Limited (administrators appointed) v Specific Freight Pty Limited [2017] FCA 269 illustrates how a transport provider can become ‘the meat in the sandwich’ when a consignee of goods becomes insolvent.
Webster, a fashion retailer, operated two well-known Australian businesses, David Lawrence and Marcs. Webster was placed into administration in February 2017 and its administrators continued to trade with a view to securing a purchaser.
On 17 May 2017, the UK Supreme Court handed down judgment in proceedings - commonly known as the Waterfall I litigation - to determine claims with regard to the estimated £8 billion surplus arising in the estate of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (LBIE).
During the past several weeks the Azerbaijani Parliament has adopted a number of laws, introducing amendments to the Law On Banks, the Civil Code, the Civil Procedure Code, the Administrative Procedure Code, the Law On Telecommunications and the Law On Licenses and Permits.
We summarize the major aspects of above-mentioned amendments below.
Law “On Introducing Amendments to the Law 'On Banks'"
A recent challenge in the High Court by liquidators to recover assets from a director of an insolvent company has highlighted various points of company law. In particular, the court had to consider directors' authority, share buybacks, and transactions between a company and its directors.
The claimant (D) was the managing director and controlling shareholder of the defendant company (the Company). The Company at first had one other director, D's wife, and later a second (W).
The liquidator challenged three transactions:
On April 7, 2017, the Azerbaijani Parliament passed in the first reading a Draft Law “On Introducing Amendments to the Law "On Banks" (the “Draft Law”).
Background
Peter Oreb and Ingrid Webber were directors of a group of companies supplying workforce solutions to some of the largest corporations in the world. Four of the companies went into liquidation. Prior to the companies going into liquidation, Peter and Ingrid resigned as directors of those companies.
On 23 March 2017, Justice Robson of the Supreme Court of Victoria declined to follow the Victorian Court of Appeal decision of Re Enhill, finding that the decision was not binding with respect to different legislation (the Companies Act 1961 (Vic) as opposed to theCorporations Act 2001 (Cth)).
Background
Since the early 1980s, there has been a divergence of judicial opinion in the decisions of Re EnhillPty Ltd [1983] 1 VR 561 and Re Suco Gold Pty Ltd (in liq) (1983) 33 SASR 99.
On 17 March, in Hambleton v Finn [2017] QDC 61, McGill SC DCJ of the District Court of Queensland applied the section 553C(1) setoff under the Corporations Act 2001 to a liquidator’s insolvent trading claim against a director.
His Honour followed the earlier decision of the District Court of Queensland in Morton v Rexel Electrical Supplies Pty Ltd. In that case, the set-off provision was applied where the liquidator was seeking the recovery of unfair preference payments.