Different recession, regulatory environment and litigation market leads to different exposures

Whilst there is a clear link between recessionary conditions and claims against financial institutions, financial services professionals and directors and officers, the lessons from the previous recessions in the early 1990s and 2008 onwards may only take us so far in predicting the outcomes this time, given the different economic base going in and the catalysts for this recession (which include the pandemic, the war in Ukraine and high inflation).

In what has been referred to as a “momentous decision for company law”, the Supreme Court recently considered whether, when a company is in the ‘insolvency zone’, its directors must have regard to the interests of its creditors in addition to, or instead of, its shareholders.

In a judgment rendered on 10 October 2021, the Dubai Court of First Instance had concluded that current and former directors and managers of Marka were personally liable towards creditors of the company merely on the basis that the assets of the company were not sufficient to pay at least 20% of its debts. The 20% threshold was set in onshore Federal Decree Law No. (9) of 2016 on Bankruptcy (the Bankruptcy Law) as it then was, and the Court determined that liability applied to current and former directors and managers without distinction where the threshold is not met.

In June 2021, we published an article (here)about the positive implications for insurers of our win in an unreported County Court case[1] in which the Deputy District Judge held that an insured’s insolvency did not have the effect of “pausing” the limitation clock from that date in relati

债权人该如何策略追讨欠款及清盘行动

客户简报

2022 年 7 月 19 日

关于香港法院就境外公司清盘和承认境外清盘的权力的最新案例

如果呈请人会因提起法院的清盘程序而获益，而不是从颁布清盘令中获益，那么香港法院是否应该对境外公司行使清盘的司法管辖权？香港终审法院（终审法院）近期对这一问题作了阐明¹。

原讼法庭亦阐述了评估是否应承认境外清盘以及是否应向境外委任的清盘人提供协助的正确做法²。

The Court of Final Appeal (the CFA) has recently clarified whether a Hong Kong court should exercise its winding-up jurisdiction over foreign companies if the petitioner would derive benefit from the invocation of the court’s winding-up process but not from the making of a winding-up order [1].

Corporate Update is our fortnightly bulletin highlighting the latest legal and regulatory developments which we consider to be of relevance to in-house corporate counsel.

The challenges faced by the construction industry are continuing to grow and insiders wonder when the storm is going to hit. For some, like Probuild, it already has. Rising inflation and the increasing cost of debt, labour shortages, supply chain delays and escalating cost of freight and materials are putting the industry under enormous pressure. Simultaneously Governments have invested heavily in building and construction to maintain growth in the economy.

In the case of Anchorage Capital Master Offshore Ltd v Sparkes (No 3); Bank of Communications Co Ltd v Sparkes (No 2) [2021] NSWSC 1025 (Anchorage v Sparkes), the Supreme Court of NSW considered the obligations of company officers to sophisticated commercial lending entities, and whether company officers could be personally liable for making misleading statements.

Significance

In certain sectors, in particular in technology and life sciences, it is common for companies to combine forces in order to maximise business opportunities. Only rarely can a single company undertake every aspect of (for example) invention, development and exploitation by itself. A company may decide to contract out such activities, or to collaborate with a third party with different skills or resources. Such a collaboration may take the form of a joint venture.