The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has now weighed in on the Bankruptcy Code’s safe harbor provisions. In Enron Creditors Recovery Corp. v. Alfa, S.A.B. de C.V., Docket Nos. 09–5122, 09–5142, 2011 WL 2536101 (2d Cir. June 28, 2011), the Second Circuit Court of Appeals faced an issue of first impression—whether Section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code, which shields certain payments from avoidance actions in bankruptcy, extends to an issuer’s payment to redeem its commercial paper made before maturity.

In connection with the administration of the debtors’ bankruptcy case, the trustee in Badovick v. Greenspan (In re Greenspan), No. 10-8019, 2011 Bank. LEXIS 272 (B.A.P. 6th Cir. Feb.

Insolvency practitioners and creditors facing voidable transaction claims will need to reassess the value of any potential or threatened unfair preference claims or other voidable transaction claims, following two important insolvency decisions in the High Court yesterday (Metal Manufactures Pty Limited v Morton [2023] HCA 1 (Metal Manufactures); Bryant v Badenoch Integrated Logging Pty Ltd [2023] HCA 2 (Badenoch).

It held that:

The new United Arab Emirates (UAE) Insolvency Law (Federal Law No.9 of 2016) (Insolvency Law) was published in the UAE Gazette on 29 September 2016 and came in to force three months later on 29 December 2016. The Insolvency Law is a federal law that applies to all seven emirates comprising the UAE. The initial view from market participants is that by replacing the old insolvency law, which placed a greater emphasis on creditor protections and formal bankruptcy proceedings alongside criminal penalties, the Insolvency Law is an overdue but welcome development.

A declaration of bankruptcy, according to Article 645 of the Commercial Transactions Law, can be imposed on any trader who ceases to pay some or all of its commercial debts. While a debtor’s cessation of payment is a presumption against him, the trader might not be considered bankrupt if the failure to pay is due to a dispute regarding the debt. In other words, it is important to prove that the debtor ceased to pay a certain commercial debt due to financial distress and credit issues.

The proposed changes to the Saudi Arabian bankruptcy regime will provide the judiciary the right to obligate creditors to accept a settlement proposed by the debtor (the “new Law”).

The Ministry of Commerce and Investment is currently in the latter stages of reforming the Kingdom’s bankruptcy laws and regulations. The new Law is intended to replace certain sections in the Commercial Court Law and the Bankruptcy Protecting Settlement Law dealing with bankruptcy.

In these challenging economic times, some businesses are struggling to cope with financial pressures and financiers are concerned with their customers’ ability to service their financing arrangements. An effective insolvency regime is, therefore, an important element of financial system stability. The statutory insolvency regime in the United Arab Emirates (“UAE”) has often been regarded as under-developed and remains largely untested.

Dubai's announcement on 25 November 2009 that it would seek a standstill (the "Standstill Announcement") on the debt of Dubai World, a Government of Dubai holding company, whose principal business activities include the master developers Nakheel and Limitless, port operator DP World, and investment house Istithmar, caused a considerable impact across world markets and widespread comment amongst the world media.

Following the Standstill Announcement a number of significant events and further announcements have taken place, principal amongst these have been:

In certain circumstances the official liquidator of a Cayman company may be able to take action to recover assets which have been transferred in the run up to the company's insolvency. It is important for those concerned with the affairs of a Cayman company in the twilight of insolvency to be aware of the statutory powers available to the official liquidator and the Grand Court in the Cayman Islands.

Voidable preferences

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".