On 18 December 2018 the English Court of Appeal held in the case of OJSC International Bank of Azerbaijan that the rule in Gibbs is still a fundamental tenet of English insolvency law and not to be sidestepped by the Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations.

Facts

The facts in summary are these:

In yet another example of the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) making its company and insolvency law even more versatile, the DIFC has introduced a mechanism which will operate in a similar manner to a scheme of arrangement under English law. The law came into effect on 12 November 2018.

Key terms

In September 2018 the Dubai International Financial Centre Authority (“DIFCA”) announced that it proposes to replace its current insolvency law with a new law to update the insolvency regime in the Dubai International Financial Centre (“DIFC”) and that it has launched a consultation in relation to the same.

Why are changes proposed?

In the recent decision of Michael J Lonsdale (Electrical) Limited v Bresco Electrical Services Limited (In Liquidation) [2018] EWHC 2043 (TCC), Fraser J found that parties cannot resolve their disputes by means of adjudication where a company in liquidation and its counterparty both claim a pre-liquidation entitlement to payment of money by the other.

Over the Bank holiday weekend, the UK government announced that it intends to introduce new legislation to implement certain measures (detailed below) as soon as parliamentary time permits.

On 15 January 2018, the UK’s second largest contractor filed for compulsory liquidation.

Shortly after, the Insolvency Service reported that there had been 2,668 insolvencies in the construction sector in the twelve months ended Q1 2018—more than any other sector.

In an important new English Court of Appeal judgment in LBI EHF v Raiffeisen Bank International AG [2018] EWCA Civ 719 (11 April 2018), Lord Justice Flaux approved and expanded the earlier High Court judgment of Mr Justice Knowles CBE in LBI EHF (in winding up) v Raiffeisen Zentralbank Osterreich [2017] EWHC 522 (Comm) (20 March 2017) on the correct meaning and treatment of t

In the recent court decision of Trenfield v HAG Import Corporation (Australia) Pty Ltd [2018] QDC 107, the liquidators recovered unfair preferences from a retention of title creditor who argued it was a secured creditor.

The issues

In the recent decision of Heavy Plant Leasing [2018] NSWSC 707, a creditor successfully defended an unfair preference claim by establishing it did not have reasonable grounds to suspect the insolvency of the debtor company, who was a subcontractor in the earth moving business.

The most common way of defending a liquidator’s unfair preferences claim is to rely upon section 588FG(2) of the Corporations Act 2001(Cth); commonly called the ‘good faith defence’.

Commonly, a creditor being sued by a liquidator to refund an alleged unfair preference is owed money by the company in liquidation.

Liquidators argue that under section 553(c)(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Act) a creditor is not able to set-off the outstanding indebtedness owed by the company to the creditor to reduce any liability of the creditor to refund any unfair preference. Similar arguments are made by liquidators in relation to insolvent trading claims.

A snapshot of the court decisions