Following the substantial impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on global trade and business operations in the UAE, the Government of the UAE has taken measures to protect businesses facing financial difficulty. Among these measures has been a mechanism that provides relief to businesses in financial distress because of the pandemic within the framework of the UAE Federal Bankruptcy Law No. 9 of 2016 (the Bankruptcy Law).
In any economic downturn, there is usually an increase in the number of demands made throughout supply chains and in particular by owners / employers on project securities (e.g. for performance issues, upon termination or following insolvency) and the recent global economic slowdown caused by the coronavirus pandemic is no different.
John Doyle Construction Limited (in liquidation) v Erith Contractors Limited sees the first consideration of a claim for summary enforcement of an adjudication decision by a company in liquidation following the Supreme Court’s decision in Bresco Electrical Services Limited (in liquidation) v Michael J Lonsdale (Electrical) Limited.
WTE-S&S AG Enters., LLC v. GHD, Inc., 2017 Bankr. LEXIS 2343 (Bankr. N. D. Ill. August 18, 2017)
In re: Linear Electric Co., Inc., No. 16-1477, 2017 U.S. App. Lexis 5527 (3d Cir., March 30, 2017)
In re Mississippi Valley Livestock, Inc., 745 F.3d 299 (7th Cir. 2014) –
A debtor sold cattle for the account of a cattle producer and then remitted the proceeds to the producer. A chapter 7 trustee sought to recover the payments as preferential transfers. The trustee lost in both the bankruptcy and district courts, and then appealed to the 7th Circuit.
The debtor made claims against a surety that issued a performance bond in connection with a construction contract. The surety contended that it was not liable for the consequential damage claims.
Waldschmidt v. Singletary Construction LLC (In re Tackett), 516 B.R. 498 (Bankr. M.D. Tenn. 2014) –
A bankruptcy trustee sought turnover of profits from the sale of homes constructed by a contractor. The trustee contended that there were contracts between the debtor and the contractor pursuant to which the debtor agreed to reimburse the contractor for its costs plus pay a $15,000 contractor’s fee for each home.