The High Court has considered a recent Court of Appeal ruling on whether trustees in bankruptcy should be able to deploy privileged documents in the discharge of their duties.

The existing position under Avonwick

The facts of Shlosberg v Avonwick Holdings Limited [2016] EWCA Civ 1138 involved a company called Webinvest. Webinvest was beneficially owned by Mr Shlosberg. Avonwick lent US$100 million to Webinvest, with Mr Shlosberg personally guaranteeing the loan.

The English Supreme Court has considered various new categories of creditor claims against a company with unlimited liability in administration where, unusually, there was enough money to pay all creditors and a surplus existed.

In proceedings commonly referred to as the Waterfall I litigation, the Supreme Court considered issues relating to the distribution of funds from the estate of Lehman Brothers International Europe (in administration) (LBIE), in circumstances where there was a surplus of assets amounting to approximately £8 billion.

This case arose from an underlying claim by a company called Mploy against Denso, which resulted in an adverse costs order against Mploy.

High profile insolvencies in the construction industry highlight the risks faced by contractors, and also the way in which debtor companies can seek to obtain advantage through ‘forum shopping’ once insolvency occurs, by seeking to invoke the jurisdiction of debtor-friendly countries like the United States.

In Tynefield Care Ltd (and others) v the New India Assurance Company Ltd¹ the indemnity claims of the insured Claimant companies were dismissed, and policies avoided from inception for breach of the duty of fair presentation under the Insurance Act 2015. The breach related to the insolvency history of one of the de facto or shadow directors of the Claimant companies.

This judgment therefore adds to the post-2015 Act case law considering breach of the duty of fair presentation.

One of the most common ways of conducting business within the UAE is through an onshore limited liability company. Commercial companies incorporated onshore in the UAE have a separate legal personality.1 The company can enter into legally binding agreements in its own name and take on valid and binding obligations. Actions of the directors of a company, on behalf of such a company, generally bind the company.2 Generally, any liabilities resulting from those actions are for the account of the company, rather than for the account of the individual directors in their personal capacity.

COMMERCIAL | JANUARY 2023 BANKRUPTCY IN THE UAE PART 2: DIRECTORS’ DUTIES 1. Introduction One of the most common ways of conducting business within the UAE is through an onshore limited liability company. Commercial companies incorporated onshore in the UAE have a separate legal personality.1 The company can enter into legally binding agreements in its own name and take on valid and binding obligations.

A challenging economic environment and Covid-19 are behind a looming wave of contentious insolvency in the Middle East. The legislative framework in the UAE now provides the tools to creditors to face the challenge.

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.

There is a wide range of precautionary attachment options in the UAE which creditors in the region should take into account.