Judgment creditors should be aware that the English Court of Appeal has given guidance on the proper construction of s423 Insolvency Act 1986 (transactions defrauding creditors)1.
Year in Review - United Arab Emirates Law in 2016
When a fund fails, the disappointed investors’ sole hope of recompense often rests on the fund’s liquidators gathering in and distributing pari passu as many of the fund’s assets as possible. The judgment of the Cayman Islands Court of Appeal in Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB (Publ) v Simon Conway and David Walker (CICA 2 of 2016), delivered on 18 November 2016, clarifies aspects of the liquidators’ power to claw back certain types of redemption payments made shortly prior to liquidation.
When Cayman Islands funds undergo liquidity stress on their balance sheet due to holding illiquid assets or irregular large redemption requests, directors of Cayman Islands funds generally consider mechanics to provide for an orderly restructure to meet redemption requests which arise. Common arrangements are to implement a “redemption gate” which limits redemptions to a certain percentage of shares in the fund or a stronger response such as a suspension of all redemptions.
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".
Over the last seven months there has been a spate of cases dealing with the relationship between arbitration law and insolvency law.
Winding-up petitions and arbitration clauses
At the end of 2006 a decision of the Court of Appeal in Churchill v First Independent Factors and Finance Limited (Churchill) caused consternation among those involved in the management of insolvent companies who are also involved in the management of the company that acquires the whole or a substantial part of the insolvent business.
It is often the case, that insolvency claims are pursued against former directors of the insolvent company or persons connected to them. It is also often the case, that such claims are assigned to a litigation funding company given lack of funds in the insolvent estate to pursue them. This is what happened in Lock v Stanley where various claims against the former directors, their parents and connected company were assigned to Manolete.
Regulation 7(1) of TUPE usually makes a dismissal automatically unfair if it is for a reason connected with the business transfer. But what if the reason for the dismissal is actually good old personal dislike and the transfer is just the context in which it surfaced?
The recent Court of Appeal decision in Saw (SW) 2010 Ltd and another v Wilson and others (as joint administrators of Property Edge Lettings Ltd) is the first case to address the effect of automatic crystallisation of an earlier floating charge upon a later floating charge.