The UK Supreme Court recently considered the scope of the following tests for whether a company is unable to pay its debts (as set out in section 123(2) of the Insolvency Act 1986):

• The company is unable to pay its debts as they fall due (the "cash-flow test") and
• The value of a company's assets is less than the amount of its liabilities, taking into account its contingent and prospective liabilities (the "balance-sheet test").

The Supreme Court confirmed that:

In BNY Corporate Trustee Services Ltd v Eurosail UK 2007 - 3BL PLC & Ors, the English Court of Appeal has decided that the mere fact that a company’s aggregate liabilities exceed its assets may not render the company to be deemed unable to pay its debts under section 123(2) of the UK Insolvency Act 1986 (commonly referred to as the “balance sheet test”). The test is whether a company has reached a point of no return such that its state of affairs is not or is unlikely to continue having regard to its contingent and future liabilities.

In our October 2010 edition of Middle East Exchange, we looked at the general duties which directors and managers of UAE companies owe to their companies and their shareholders. In this edition, we consider the position where the company's financial position deteriorates. As directors or managers struggle with the inevitable commercial and operational pressures, what additional legal responsibilities and potential liabilities does UAE law place upon them?

The retail sector and its suppliers operate at the sharp end of the economy and feel the impact of tighter consumer spending with more immediacy than most other sectors.

Following the House of Lords' decision in Melville Dundas in April, the TCC has now decided in the case of Pierce Design v Johnston on 17 July that the case has a wide application - but unreasonable failure to pay may still be penalised.

The decision of the House of Lords in Melville Dundas in April resolved a tension between the payment provisions of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 ("the Act") and contractual clauses applying to payments after termination of building contracts.

The Bankruptcy Law, applicable to FIEs and most other companies in China, will come into effect on 1 June 2007.

The Bankruptcy Law sets out a dual test of insolvency: inability to pay debts as they fall due ("cash flow insolvency") and insufficient assets to pay off all debts ("balance sheet insolvency"). Either a debtor or a creditor may apply to the court for reorganization or liquidation of the debtor. Court assistance may also be sought to conciliate.

We know this publication is about dispute resolution, but what we really want to talk about in this article is avoiding insolvency and bankruptcy disputes.

“If Only You Had Come to Us Sooner”

In a recent decision released by Madam Justice Kent of the Alberta Court of Queens Bench (the “Court”) the Court declined to grant Octagon Properties Group Ltd. and certain affiliates (“Octagon” or the “Debtors”) relief pursuant to the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act, R.S.C. 1985 c.C36 (“CCAA”).

In re Zais Investment Grade Ltd. VII1 is the latest in a recent line of bankruptcy cases challenging bedrock assumptions regarding securitization special purpose entities (SPEs) and bankruptcy considerations in securitization transactions.2 Zais establishes precedent allowing a senior noteholder of a collateralized debt obligation (CDO) to place the CDO issuer in an involuntary chapter 11 bankruptcy in order to advance an asset management plan that would otherwise require supermajority approval of all noteholders (including all junior classes) under the related indenture.

On August 11, the Honorable Allan L. Gropper issued an opinion of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York denying five motions to dismiss certain Chapter 11 bankruptcy cases of several property-specific special purpose subsidiaries (SPE Debtors), including a number of issuers of commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS), that are owned by mall operator General Growth Properties, Inc.