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
Two and a half years after the beginning of the COVID-19 crisis, and on the verge of an economic recession, important developments are emerging in Spanish insolvency law.
Tras dos años y medio desde que empezara la crisis del COVID-19 y a las puertas de una recesión económica, surgen novedades importantes en el Derecho de la Insolvencia en España.
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.
On 26 June 2019, the Directive on restructuring and insolvency[1] of the European Parliament and of the Council was published in the Official Journal of the European Union.
The ‘roaring twenties’ of this century have left the business world in constant turmoil. After emerging from the pandemic, geopolitical tensions and the resulting economic uncertainty have pushed companies to rethink their organisational structures and rework their operating models and supply chains. Digitalisation and automation of the workforce is now at the forefront as businesses respond to rapidly changing customer needs. All of this requires companies to focus strategically on change management, as well as major workforce restructurings and reorganisations.
Podwyższeniu ma ulec maksymalny wymiar kar pieniężnych nakładanych na związki przedsiębiorców przez organ ochrony konkurencji i konsumentów. A w przypadku niewypłacalności związku, przewiduje się odpowiedzialność solidarną jego członków.
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 10 October, the Dubai Court of First Instance issued a potentially ground-breaking judgment in respect of directors’ liability in the context of corporate insolvency.
In particular, in the matter of the liquidation of the public company Marka PJSC (“Marka”), the Court held the company’s board of directors and managers personally and jointly liable for the company’s outstanding debts, totalling close to AED 450 million.
Liquidators have wide-ranging powers under the Companies Act 1993 (Companies Act), including the power to request directors, shareholders or any other relevant person to assist in the liquidation of a company.