The High Court has scrutinised the validity of a Declaration of Trust and the enforcement of charging orders. Wade v Singh sheds light on the intricate balance between property rights, trust law, and creditor protection in an insolvency. The case, centered around a property known as "the Oaks," involved the liquidators of MSD Cash & Carry Plc (in liquidation) seeking to enforce charging orders against properties owned by various family members involved in the business to satisfy a significant judgment debt.

Background of the Case

And so, we continue the tale with the TIBs now triumphantly holding both the hard-won exequatur which expressly recognised the bankruptcy order and Trustee in Bankruptcy (TIB) and confirmed that all rights and powers were enforceable in France and judgment of the French criminal court which restored the seized criminal assets to the TIBs under the vesting provisions of the Insolvency Act 1986. However, there were still clear and untested differences to obtaining automatic recognition under the EU Regulation on Insolvency proceedings (as Recast) (RIR).

Hong Kong is a common law jurisdiction, and its legal system is based on English law. Following Hong Kong’s handover to China on 1 July 1997, the Basic Law of Hong Kong is the constitutional document of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Article 8 of the Basic Law provides that: “laws previously in force in Hong Kong, that is, the common law, rules of equity, ordinances, subordinate legislation and customary law shall be maintained, except for any that contravene [the Basic Law], and subject to any amendment by the legislature of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.”

The Privy Council has recently delivered a landmark judgment on the interplay between arbitration agreements and winding up petitions. The Board held that the English case of Salford Estates (No 2) Ltd v Altomart Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 1575; Ch 589, which had adopted a pro-arbitration approach to stay or dismiss winding up petitions based on debts covered by arbitration agreements, even if the debts were not genuinely disputed on substantial grounds was wrongly decided.

Digital assets may be new, but existing English insolvency laws and principles can deal with them. So finds the UK Jurisdiction Taskforce (UKJT) in its ‘Legal Statement on Digital Assets and English Insolvency Law’, published this week.

Key takeaways include:

The European Commission has published a new proposal for a Directive that would harmonise certain aspects of insolvency law across the EU. This proposal, following the enactment of Directive (EU) 2019/1023, illustrates a strong desire to facilitate the free movement of capital within Europe. A significant part of the proposed Directive is designed to make laws governing avoidance actions uniform across the EU.

The right to effectively avoid the illegitimate removal of assets from a company in financial difficulties is a key element of any insolvency law that protects the rights of creditors and maximises the recovery of value from the insolvent company.

Czech insolvency law, and in particular the insolvency avoidance rights, play a significant role as a recovery tool for creditors in insolvency proceedings, but in practice mainly act as a preventive warning signal for a debtor and its creditors when trading, even before financial problems arise.

The EU directive harmonising certain aspects of insolvency law, a Propo

Hungarian insolvency law already knows the concept of avoidance actions. Allowing creditors and liquidators to challenge certain transactions aims to protect the value of the insolvency estate. Although the principles of Hungarian insolvency law are the same as those outlined in the European Commission's proposal for a Directive (i.e. Proposed Directive), there are some aspects which would need to be carefully thought through before they are harmonised.

The Scottish Court of Session has, for the first time, considered what is required to establish a ‘liability’ for the purposes of the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 2010 (the “2010 Act”). In this matter, the Court found that a ‘decree in default’, issued due to the insolvent Insured’s failed to appear at a procedural hearing, was sufficient to establish ‘liability’.