In a recent opinion (Masri v Consolidated Contractors International Co. SAL and others [2009] UKHL 43) handed down in the final days of the House of Lords, their Lordships clarified a point which may be of some significance for successful claimants seeking to enforce a Court order against corporate defendants.  

As many Japanese contractors are exposed to the financial crisis in Dubai, this month our Construction Disputes Avoidance Newsletter focuses on an important recent development concerning Dubai World. At the same time as announcing that the Nakheel sukuk due for repayment on 14 December would be repaid in full, the Dubai government stated that it would pass a reorganisation law for the Dubai World group in case that group is unable to achieve an acceptable restructuring of its remaining obligations. The details of that new law have now been released in the form of Dubai Decree No.

Intoduction

With the credit crunch impacting the Russian banking sector and Russian banks facing their gravest crisis since 1998 (as evidenced by Bank Globex freezing deposits), it is in our view timely to revisit the regulations affecting the insolvency of Russian credit organisations.

The Supreme Court has delivered a judgment providing welcome clarification on the construction and effect of section 123(2) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the "balance-sheet" insolvency test) and its interaction with section 123(1)(e) of the Act (the "cash flow" insolvency test).

The Pensions Regulator has issued a statement setting out its approach to Financial Support Directions in insolvency situations.  It follows the Court of Appeal's decision in Bloom v The Pensions Regulator (Nortel) in October 2011 that a liability arising from a Financial Support Direction (FSD), or a contribution notice (CN), issued to a company in administration or liquidation will, except in very limited circumstances, amount to an expense of that administration or liquidation.  As such, it will rank very highly in the payment priority order, in particular rank

Background

Until recently Russian legislation was not familiar with the concept of close-out netting. Although there was no prohibition for market participants to enter into netting agreements, Russian courts would not enforce such agreements in case of bankruptcy. This led to the use of complex structures to avoid the negative consequences of the application of Russian law and was a strong argument in favor of using foreign entities and application of foreign law to derivative transactions.

In Clare Horwood & Others v Land of Leather Limited (In Administration) and Zurich Insurance Plc the Commercial Court was asked to consider in the context of a claim under the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 1930 whether a compromise agreement entered into by an insured without the insurer's specific instructions in writing was in breach of a policy term. Under the compromise agreement, the insured had released a third party from an obligation to indemnify it in respect of various personal injury claims.

On 1 May 2009, the administrators of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) ("LBIE") applied to the English High Court for directions on certain issues relating to "Client Money" (as defined in the UK Financial Services Authority's Client Assets Rules, the "CASS Rules") held by LBIE. LBIE was regulated by the FSA and was required to comply with the CASS Rules.

Introduction

The filing on 15 September 2008 for Chapter 11 protection under US bankruptcy laws by the Lehman Brothers ultimate parent company, Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., led to several UK-based entities of the Lehman Group entering administration.

On 19 April 2013, Justice Foster of the Federal Court of Australia handed down judgment in the case of Eopply New Energy Technology Co Ltd v EP Solar Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 356. The question before his Honour was whether a foreign arbitral award made in China ought to be enforced in Australia against an Australian company in liquidation.