The New Zealand and UK Arbitration Acts generally require court proceedings to be stayed if the parties have agreed to resolve disputes through arbitration.

In a recent address to the Insolvency Lawyers Association, the new Chancellor of the High Court, Sir Geoffrey Vos, discussed briefly the effect of that statutory stay upon winding-up petitions.

​Directors do not need to consider creditors’ interests when determining the fairness of their own remuneration, even after the company has become insolvent, the Court of Appeal has found.

The facts

The Companies Act 1993 requires that directors who vote to authorise director remuneration must sign a certificate stating that, in their opinion, the payment is fair to the company and setting out the grounds for that opinion.

Supreme Court Judgment dated 10 March 2016 (STS 151/2016)

The judgment of the Supreme Court analyses the objective scope of extension of the liability for obligations and debts for which, as appropriate, the director of a company should be liable and, more specifically, the scope of "the corporate obligations subsequent to the occurrence of the legal ground for dissolution".

On 14 December 2009, the same day on which Nakheel, a Dubai World subsidiary, was due to make payment under its 2009 sukuk, the Government of Dubai announced that it had received support from the Government of Abu Dhabi and the UAE Central Bank and would pay the US$4.1 billion due. It also announced that it had secured funding of an additional US$5.9 billion to be used to meet “interest expenses and working capital [of Dubai World] through April 30, 2010 – conditioned on the company being successful in negotiating a standstill”.

To secure an order for the #winding-up of a Quasi-Partnership company on the Just& Equitable ground, is it necessary only to show that mutual trust and confidence between the shareholders/quasi-partners has broken down? Hardwicke investigates the recent case of Badyal v Badyal & Ors [2019] EWCA Civ 1644

Background

In Oversea-Chinese Banking Corporation Limited v ING Bank NV [2019] EWHC 676 (Comm), Moulder J rejected a purchaser’s claim that their damages for breach of warranty should be calculated by reference to a hypothetical indemnity which they would have negotiated with the seller had the true position been disclosed prior to entering into the agreement.

On 24 October 2012 the UK Supreme Court handed down its highly anticipated decision on the enforceability of foreign judgments in the case of Rubin v. Eurofinance S.A. [2012] UKSC 46, reversing the previous judgment of the Court of Appeal which had significantly altered the landscape of cross-border insolvency.

If you’re pursuing assets in England relevant to a non-European bankruptcy or insolvency, you can’t rely on a (default) foreign judgment and must instead bring fresh proceedings in the English courts

In a case with truly global implications, the Supreme Court of England and Wales held earlier today that judgments of U.S. Bankruptcy Courts against foreign defendants who had not submitted to the Bankruptcy Court’s jurisdiction were not enforceable in England and Wales in the case of Rubin v. Eurofinance SA.

Factual Background

Important clarification was provided today to the insolvency world as the UK Supreme Court in the conjoined appeals in Rubin and New Cap rejected the modified universalist doctrine that established common law rules as to the enforcement of foreign judgments do not (or should not) apply to insolvency orders.