Lexology Pro Compliancetakes a look at some of the most informative articles published on Lexology this fortnight for compliance teams to stay up-to-date, including key guidance from regulators around the world and practical tips to help businesses adapt to a new normal.
Two directors from the UK were disqualified for 12 years each after they used funds from existing clients to payback previous clients. The directors' company entered into loan agreements with existing clients worth around £9.1 million for forex trades, in return for interest and loan repayments. The Insolvency Service later discovered that at least £8.4 million was used to make interest and loan repayments to previous clients.
This article by Jeremy Richmond QC and Chris Recker of Trowers & Hamlins was first published in International Corporate Rescue by Chase Cambria.
OVERVIEW
On July 27, 2020, the Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court (the “Court”) released its decision in Great North Data Ltd., (Re),[1] where Justice Handrigan outlined principles for courts to consider when exercising their power under section 69.4 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, R.S.C. 1985, c.
After 448 days in court, over 85,000 documents and more than 10 judgments, a special bench of the Western Australian Court of Appeal handed down its decision in Westpac Banking Corporation v The Bell Group Ltd (in liq) (No.3) [2012] WASCA 157 (Bell Appeal Decision). The Bell Appeal Decision raises issues relating to the integrity of transactions with companies facing insolvency, which may create serious liability issues for company directors and lenders alike.
We have been sending Client Updates since 2007 concerning the decision of the Australian High (Supreme) Court in Sons of Gwalia Ltd v Margaretic. Specifically, the High Court held that the damages claims of shareholders of insolvent companies for fraud and misrepresentation should be treated pari passu with the claims of all other unsecured creditors, rather than being treated as subordinated to unsecured claims as is the case in the U.S.
Freezing Injunctions
In the case of Delco Participation BV v Green Elite Limited [2018] the Court of Appeal considered the test for appointing liquidators to a company following an alleged loss of substratum.
By virtue of his appointment, a liquidator steps into the shoes of the company and so the usual contractual, tortious and equitable remedies are actionable by the liquidator, acting in the name of the company. Claims are most likely to be based on the following:
There were six substantive civil decisions released by the Court of Appeal this week. There were many criminal decisions released.
In Wall v. Shaw, the Court determined that there is no limitation period to objecting to accounts in an application to pass accounts in an estates matter. A notice of objection is not a “proceeding” within the meaning of the Limitations Act, 2002.