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.

The recent decision of the UK Supreme Court in BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SAV & Ors [2022] UKSC 25 has considered the nature of the so-called “creditor duty” and whether directors are required to take into account the interests of creditors when the company is “insolvent, bordering on insolvency, or that an insolvent liquidation or administration is probable.”

The Sequana decision also provides guidance about when the so-called “creditor duty” is engaged.

Background

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

The recent decision of the High Court in Fistonich & Anor v Gibson & Ors [2022] NZHC 1422 considered whether receivers have a right to retain surplus funds to meet the cost of defending actual or forecast claims against the receivers.

Background

The case involves the sale of the business and land associated with Villa Maria winery, which was owned and operated through Villa Maria Estate Ltd and established 60 years ago by Sir George Fistonich. FFWL Ltd was the holding company of Villa Maria Estate Ltd.

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

The importance of subcontractors scrutinising how retention funds are held, and how they are dealt with by insolvency practitioners, was highlighted in the recent High Court decision in McVeigh v Decmil Australia Pty Limited & Anor [2021] NZHC 2929 (Decmil). The liquidator sought an order from the Court to be appointed as receiver of the retentions fund.

On 20 October 2021, the Supreme Court of Appeal (“the SCA”) handed down a judgement in the matter of JP Markets v FSCA (Case no 460/2021) [2021] ZASCA 148 (20 October 2021) in terms of which the SCA set aside the decision of the High Court to place JP Markets (Pty) Ltd (“JP Markets”) into liquidation, finding that it was not just and equitable.

In a landmark bankruptcy case judgment issued on 10 October 2021 the Dubai Court of First Instance has held the directors and managers of an insolvent Dubai-based PJSC to be personally liable to pay the outstanding debts of the previously listed company (now in liquidation) pursuant to the UAE Bankruptcy Law. This decision represents a very significant milestone in the UAE insolvency landscape since the enactment of the Bankruptcy Law in late 2016, being the first known instance of a case where such personal liability has been ordered.