In the current economic climate, more and more companies are getting into financial difficulties, informal workouts by debtor companies, with support from certain creditors, seem to be increasingly common.

The High Court has held that there is no common law rule preventing enforcement of a foreign judgment in England and Wales simply because it is not presently or fully enforceable in the relevant foreign jurisdiction.

When a company is in the so-called “twilight zone” approaching insolvency, it is well-established that the directors’ fiduciary duties require them to take into account interest of creditors (the so-called “creditor duty”).

In a recent case, the High Court has had one of its first opportunities to consider BTI v Sequana [2022] UKSC 25 (see our previous update here), in which the Supreme Court gave important guidance on the existence and scope of the duty of company directors to have regard to the interests of creditors (the so-called “creditor duty”, which arises in an insolvency scenario).

The judgement raises important questions for directors faced with substantial liabilities

The Federal Court of Australia recently determined an application brought by the administrators of a company in voluntary administration seeking judicial guidance on how to deal with claims for costs and interests resulting from two prior arbitrations. The key issue was whether the costs and interests awarded in the previous arbitrations were admissible to proof in the administration of the company, having regard to the fact that the relevant arbitral awards were made after the appointment of administrators.

The Court made a distinction between the two arbitrations as follows:

Het faillissement van Heiploeg uit 2014 is een bron van principiële geschillen en procedures. Deze Heiploeg-uitspraak werpt de vraag op onder welke voorwaarden een (door de Europese Commissie) aan Heiploeg opgelegde kartelboete kan worden verhaald op een (in dit geval gewezen) bestuurder. In de literatuur is vanuit meerdere invalshoeken de nodige aandacht besteed aan de mogelijkheid om op grond van het mededingingsrecht een boete op te leggen aan bestuurders en andere feitelijk leidinggevenden.

The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services (the Committee) has delivered its report following an inquiry into the “effectiveness of Australia’s corporate insolvency laws in protecting and maximising value for the benefit of all interested parties and the economy”.

The English Court of Appeal has clarified the interpretation of two aspects of s.423 of the Insolvency Act 1986, the legislation which provides a mechanism for the avoidance of transactions which have been made for the purpose of defrauding creditors:Invest Bank PSC v Ahmad Mohammad El-Husseini [2023] EWCA Civ 555.

Aanleiding en inhoud TWTT

Een turboliquidatie is de ontbinding op eigen initiatief van een rechtspersoon, waarbij – als de rechtspersoon op het tijdstip van ontbinding geen baten heeft – het tijdstip van de ontbinding samenvalt met de beëindiging van de rechtspersoon. In dat geval hoeft er dus niet te worden vereffend, want er zijn geen baten om te vereffenen. Let op: het voorgaande geldt dus ook als de rechtspersoon nog wel lasten heeft.