This case was heard before CIGA came into force but the provisions of the CIG Bill were known. Statutory demands were served on 27 March 2020 on the company in respect of debts due under loan agreements and a winding up petition had been presented. The company applied for an injunction to restrain the advertisement of the petition, claiming that although it was insolvent it had been prevented from obtaining funding, to enable it to propose a scheme of arrangement to its unsecured creditors, as a result of the pandemic.

In our March 2012 Insurance Update we considered the potential widening of the scope for creditors to claim damages against a director personally for contravention of the Corporations Act 2001 (Act). The Supreme Court of Queensland awarded Phoenix Constructions over $1.2 million in damages against Mr McCracken for contravention of s 182 of the Act. This decision, a first of its kind, was appealed by Mr McCracken.

Introduction

The High Court recently considered, in European Bank Limited v Robb Evans of Robb Evans & Associates, the nature and extent of a "usual undertaking as to damages" given by a receiver in accordance with Part 28, rule 7(2) of the Supreme Court Rules 1970 (NSW). In doing so, it overturned the decision of the NSW Court of Appeal to reinstate the trial judge's finding that the receiver was liable for substantial losses suffered by a third party deprived of the funds which were at the heart of the dispute.

Background

When disputes between shareholders escalate, one of the shareholders may be tempted to transfer the business to a new entity. Can the shareholder be stopped if he succeeds in obtaining a majority vote?

THE FACTS:

On 26 November 2014 the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (the "Privy Council") handed down its judgment in the appeal brought by Stichting Shell Pensioenfonds ("Shell") against the joint liquidators of Fairfield Sentry Ltd ("Fairfield Sentry") (the "Liquidators"), the largest feeder fund to Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC ("BLMIS").¹ 

When a company is being wound up in a given jurisdiction, can an anti-suit injunction be sought against relevant creditors or members to prevent them from pursuing proceedings in another jurisdiction with a view to securing priority in the liquidation?

This was the issue for the Privy Council to decide in Stichting Shell Pensioenfonds v Krys and another (British Virgin Islands) (26 November 2014), in what is an interesting instance of the application of anti-suit injunctions within the insolvency framework.

Facts

The purpose of an anti-suit injunction is to restrain respondents from commencing or continuing proceedings in another jurisdiction. Anti-suit injunctions are an important, and frequently required, judicial tool within the BVI. The growing number of international companies registered in the BVI has resulted in a corresponding increase in the number of BVI matters involving multiple jurisdictions. The recent BVI Court of Appeal decision in (1) Kenneth M.

Trial on preliminary issues

In the case of Bosi Security Services Ltd v Wright [2013] WASC 431, in which the court granted an interlocutory injunction preventing the sale of land by receivers despite acknowledging that the applicants’ case under the Trade Practices Act and Australian Consumer Law was not a strong one and had obvious deficiencies.

Facts

Puerto Rico’s financial woes have recently been front and center in financial news. Although a recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court curtailed Puerto Rico’s ability to enact its own legislation to address its debt situation, late last month President Obama signed into law legislation designed to allow Puerto Rico to restructure its vast public debt, giving new hope to the Commonwealth’s financially strapped public utilities.