The Court held that it had jurisdiction to order a Latvian bank to disclose information regarding a bankrupt's dealings. The Joint Trustees of the Bankrupt's estate had demonstrated that their request was reasonable and was required to identify further assets that the Bankrupt might hold.
This decision is the latest that has been made in relation to the bankruptcy of Mr Shlosberg, a Russian businessman domiciled in London. Mr Shlosberg was made bankrupt in January 2015 on a judgment debt of US$195 million plus interest.
The Facts
Mr Brown was declared bankrupt on 12 May 2016, following possession proceedings and costs order against him which had not been paid. Mr Brown did not accept that the original litigation leading to his bankruptcy was valid, and as a result did not accept that the bankruptcy proceedings were valid either. Mr Brown represented himself at all hearings and refused legal representation or assistance.
The Facts
This case involves an application brought by the trustee in the bankruptcy of Harlequin Property SVG Ltd (the "Company"), property developers incorporated under the laws of St. Vincent and the Grenadines ("SVG"). The Company's main asset was a property in SVG, the construction of which was funded by more than 1,900 deposits from individual investors. However, only 116 units were completed.
The Supreme Court has recently held that directors who have caused company property to be transferred to another company under their control may be liable to restore the proceeds even after expiry of the six-year limitation period.
Mr and Mrs Fielding were directors and majority shareholders of Burnden Holdings (UK) Ltd ("BHUK"), a holding company with trading subsidiaries including Vital Energi Utilities Ltd ("Vital Energi").
The German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) has taken the opportunity to clarify its position on section 17(2) German Insolvency Act (Insolvenzordnung, InsO). According to sec. 17(2) a debtor is deemed insolvent if he is unable to pay his debts as they fall due (Zahlungsunfähigkeit).
There is more trouble for the British High Street as Toys R Us and Maplins have both entered Administration. Toys R Us' remaining stores are due to close once stock is sold as the Administrators have been unable to find a buyer. Maplins' stores remain open for now and the Administrators are still looking to secure a buyer, but so far have been unsuccessful. New Look has announced it will be closing 60 stores, and Carpetright has announced plans to close poorly performing stores.
The Knesset has aimed to update the law on insolvency by passing the Law of Insolvency and Economic Rehabilitation.
This has arisen as a result of the current insolvency laws being considered to be regulated under outdated legislation, being disorganised and having had a detrimental effect on debtors, creditors, and the economy. The incoming Law will take effect in 18 months' time and is designed to rectify the situation and provide the Israeli economy with modern legislation with respect to insolvency.
The Law has three primary objectives:
The Delaware Bankruptcy Court held that comity outweighed the parties' contractual choice of jurisdiction. Although claims would be allowed to be brought in the US, any recoveries would need to be pursued in Italian insolvency proceedings.
Energy Coal, an Italian company engaged in trading coal and other raw materials, commenced debt restructuring, or Concordato Preventivo ("Italian Proceedings"), proceedings in Italy in 2015. The restructuring plan allowed for the business to continue as a going concern and pay creditors from future revenues.
The High Court held that "final determination" signifies the very last stage of any proceedings, without the chance to appeal. Sberbank were therefore still bound by their undertaking to take no further steps in an arbitration against the Company.
What happened?
Toys R Us' failure was blamed on competition from online retailers, changing consumer spending habits as a result of inflation and increases in business rates.
Nevertheless, competing toy retailer The Entertainer announced sales growth of 6.8% and an increase in pre-tax profits of 37% last week. It does not show signs of succumbing to the pressures that led to the failure of Toys R Us.
How could retailers of similar goods, operating in the same market conditions have had such disparate experiences?