In Walton v ACN 004 410 833 Limited (formerly Arrium Limited) (in liquidation) [2022] HCA 3, the High Court extended the purpose for which, and incidentally parties by whom, public examinations may be used.

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.

In Australia, public companies are required to have at least three directors (s 201A(2) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act)). However, in exceptional circumstances, a public company might find itself with fewer than three directors – for example, where the other board directors resign because of some disagreement.

In collaboration with our foreign law firm partners, we continue to update our chart of COVID-19 measures taken by governments around the world. Today’s update includes new information for many countries as indicated in the chart: Global Government Measures Taken in Response to COVID-19.

Following our 2016 article, the Court of Appeal has upheld the decision of the High Court that dividends are liable to challenge as transactions defrauding creditors under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the “IA”).

Introduction

In light of the decisions made in the case of BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA [2019] EWCA Civ 112 (the Sequana case), consideration may need to be given to the interests of creditors when declaring a dividend. The Court of Appeal in the Sequana case concluded that the payment of an otherwise lawful dividend constituted a transaction defrauding creditors under section 423 of the UK’s Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986).

Background to the Sequana Case

To no great surprise, the Global Corporate v Hale appeal decision has gone against the director. The Court of Appeal handed down the eagerly awaited judgment on 27 November 2018.

A discharged Bankrupt had intentionally misled the Court as to his COMI being in England and Wales in order to obtain a Bankruptcy Order. Four years after the making of the Bankruptcy Order, the Court annulled it on the grounds that the Court did not have jurisdiction to make the Order in the first place.

In my May 2018 article ‘Insolvency calls time on pursuing claims’, I looked at how various moratoria apply to stop claims when a party enters into certain insolvency processes. I offered a taster when I said that adjudicator’s awards were a strange species because they are not final and binding, that this complicates their enforcement, and that I would look at the complex interaction between insolvency and the enforcement of adjudicator's awards soon.

BEIS has just published the Government's response to its March 2018 consultation on "Insolvency and Corporate Governance" reforms (for our March alert on this, click