Liquidators may often consider it necessary to bring proceedings on behalf of the insolvent company to seek to recover assets or obtain compensation on the company’s behalf. If that action fails, and the insolvent company does not have the funds to meet any costs order made against it, the liquidator is potentially personally exposed to paying those costs pursuant to a non-party costs order. This could operate harshly for liquidators. Every piece of litigation has a winner and a loser.

Until now the 1981 English case of The Halcyon Isle has been the principle authority on maritime liens and conflict of laws in Anglo-Common law jurisdictions. In that case, which was on appeal from the Singapore courts, the majority of the Privy Council held that the recognition and enforcement of maritime liens were to be determined according to the law of the forum in which the proceedings were commenced (i.e. the lex fori).

On 2 December 2015 the draft bill on modernization of bankruptcy proceedings entered into public consultation. The bill is part of the Dutch legislative programme to improve and modernize bankruptcy law, known as Wetgevingsprogramma Herijking faillissementsrecht in the Netherlands.

The Australian government has announced a 'National Innovation and Science Agenda' to be introduced by the middle of 2017, which includes providing a defence to protect directors from liability for insolvent trading where restructuring advice is obtained in an attempt to turn around a company's financial position. The government has also released the Productivity Commission Report on 'Business Set-up, Transfer and Closure' which contains recommendations on how the defence will operate.

As of 1 January 2015 the harmonized financial institution resolution rules from the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive will be implemented in national Dutch legislation. Among other things these rules confer upon the Dutch Central Bank the so-called "bail-in power". Pursuant to the bail-in instrument, the Dutch Central Bank will have the power to cancel and/or reduce the unsecured liabilities of a financial institution under resolution or convert such liabilities into equity.

In a ruling dated 16 October 2015, the Dutch Supreme Court has confirmed the enforceability of security surplus arrangements in the event a security provider is declared bankrupt. In addition, the Dutch Supreme Court has confirmed that, unlike statutory recourse claims (regresrechten), contractual recourse claims can be construed in such a manner that they come into existence (as conditional claims) before payment by the guarantor of the debt owed by the debtor, after which they become unconditional.

Recently, the Dutch Supreme Court has given an interesting ruling relating to the consequences of commingling (vermenging) of multiple objects for a security right created over one of those objects.

Dutch Supreme Court 14 August 2015 (ECLI:NL:HR:2015:2192)  

In a judgment dated 13 October 2015 in proceedings between a bank and its client the Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal ruled that the bank was allowed to terminate the credit agreement with the client on the grounds that the client had caused a reduction in the value of shares pledged to the bank.

Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal 13 October 2015 (ECLI:NL:GHARL:2015:8354)

Application for a freezing order in support of foreign proceedings/appointment of a receiver and a power of attorney

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2015/3383.html

The applicants (based in the UAE and Georgia) sought freezing orders against the respondents in support of proceedings taking place overseas. The respondents are LLPs registered in England and Wales and owned by a Georgian national.

This Court of Appeal decision in (1)TopBrandsLtd(2) LemioneServicesLtdv (1) Gagen Dulari Sharma (2) Barry John Ward (as former liquidators of Mama Milla Ltd) (2015) is noteworthy as it underlines that the “illegality defence” is still in a state of flux and in need of clarification by the Supreme Court.