The Italian Supreme Court (judgement No. 14552 of 26 June 2014), ruled that the disclosure of acts in fraud carried out by the debtor causes the admission to concordato preventivo to be revoked according to Article 173 IBL, even in case of approval by the creditors.
The case
The credit crunch has put pressure on a wide range of structures and, as a result, lenders, borrowers and other counterparties are looking more closely at the impact of possible insolvency proceedings. As Jersey companies have often been used in cross-border finance transactions, it is important to be aware of the differences between Jersey and English insolvency procedures for companies.
What are the main Jersey insolvency procedures for a Jersey company?
These are:-
On 1 July 2016 four important new laws applicable to businesses and directors will enter into effect.
On 1 March 2009, the Guideline on Investigation and Prosecution of Bankruptcy Fraud (Aanwijzing opsporing en vervolging faillissementsfraude; the “Guideline”) entered into force. The Guideline contains rules for the Public Prosecution Office (Openbaar Ministerie) to increase the prosecution of bankruptcy fraud. The Guideline indicates that criminal law will be complementary to the civil law instruments that a receiver (curator) has in bankruptcy proceedings. The Guideline further provides for cooperation between the Public Prosecution Office and receivers.
On November 1 2007 the State Commission for Insolvency Law presented the Preliminary Bill for an Insolvency Act to the minister of justice. The most important changes to the existing Bankruptcy Act are outlined in this update.
The Supreme Court’s decision in McIntosh v Fisk has confirmed how the courts will deal with claw back claims under the voidable transactions regime in the context of Ponzi schemes. Liquidators’ recoveries will be limited to the fictitious profits for which there was no value given.
The Supreme Court in McIntosh v Fisk upheld the Court of Appeal decision permitting the liquidators of Ross Asset Management Ltd (RAM) to claw back the fictitious profits paid out to Mr McIntosh. However the claw back did not apply to the original investment of $500,000.
The majority found that McIntosh had a defence for the $500,000 as he had provided "real and substantial valuable consideration". Once RAM misappropriated the $500,000 it became indebted to McIntosh for that amount, this equated to the provision of valuable consideration.
James Developments Limited (JDL) went into liquidation on 6 July 2009.
In November 2012, the liquidator issued proceedings against a trust for repayment of a loan, six years and one month after the loan was made. The trustees argued the claim was time-barred. The liquidator argued there had been a fraudulent cover-up of the loan and that the High Court should postpone the limitation period under section 28 of the Limitation Act 1950 (Act).