Summary

In Carey v Korda [2012] WASCA 228, the Western Australian Supreme Court of Appeal (Court) has provided a timely confirmation that legal advisers engaged by receivers to provide advice in relation to a receivership are properly viewed as advisers to the receivers as principal, and not the mortgagor company.

The decision will no doubt be welcomed by insolvency practitioners, as it confirms that the legal advice, and the right to invoke the associated privilege, belongs to the receivers, not the mortgagor company.

The Pensions Regulator announced this week that it will not  pursue action to impose a Financial Support Direction against US company, Chemtura Corporation and members of its group after a funding settlement, involving the payment of expedited contributions to the pension scheme of its UK subsidiary, was reached with the scheme's trustees.

The Hong Kong Government has recently released the conclusions to its public consultation on the proposed corporate rescue procedure and insolvent trading laws. The consistent theme throughout the conclusions paper is that the Government will propose practical compromises in order to overcome the contentious issues that have stalled previous efforts to introduce a statutory regime to facilitate corporate restructurings.

The transition from 2009 to 2010 sees some significant legislative chapters closing, notably the Companies Act 2006, Rome I and II, the Banking Act 2009 and the Lisbon Treaty.

Implications of the recent decision of the High Court in Re Global Trader Europe Limited (In Liquidation) regarding the application of the FSA’s client money rules.

In the matter of Maiden Civil (P&E) Pty Ltd; Richard Albarran and Blair Alexander Pleash as receivers and managers of Maiden Civil (P&E) Pty Ltd & Ors v Queensland Excavation Services Pty Ltd & Ors [2013] NSWSC 852

Overview

In Rubin v Eurofinance SA and New Cap Reinsurance Corporation (in liquidation) and another v AE Grant and others [2012] UKSC 46, the UK Supreme Court held that:  

The Sinclair v Versailles1 decision has extinguished any prospect that a victim of a fraud has a proprietary claim to a fraudster’s secret profits. It also offers significant comfort to banks, insolvency practitioners and other potential recipients of trust funds by setting a high bar for whether a recipient person is “on notice” of a proprietary claim to those funds.

In Petroprod Ltd (in official liquidation in the Cayman Islands and in compulsory liquidation in Singapore) v Larsen Oil and Gas Pte Ltd [2010] SGHC 186 the Singapore High Court considered whether an action brought to avoid transactions that allegedly violated insolvency laws should be stayed in favour of arbitration.

The High Court has ruled in the case of Goldacre (Offices) Limited v Nortel Networks UK Limited (in administration) [2009] that rent for premises that continue to be used for the beneficial outcome of an administration must be paid as an expense of the administration. This decision confirms that the court has no discretion in these circumstances and that it does not matter if only part of the premises are being used. This contrasts with the position where a landlord wishes to take action against a tenant in administration such as bringing forfeiture or injunction proceedings.