The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) has been at loggerheads with the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) on various occasions in the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) of a distressed entity. Courts and tribunals have passed varying judgments, either giving primacy to the IBC or allowing the Enforcement Directorate (ED), a functionary under the PMLA, to perform its duties irrespective of the ongoing CIRP of a company.

In its recent opinion in Raymond James & Associates Inc. v. Jalbert (In re German Pellets Louisiana LLC), 23-30040, 2024 WL 339101 (5th Cir. Jan. 30, 2024), the Fifth Circuit held that a confirmed bankruptcy plan enjoined a party from asserting certain indemnification counterclaims against a plan trustee because the party did not file a proof of claim.

Background

INSOLVENCY – The bankruptcy division of Mauritian Supreme Court re-affirms the test to determine the existence of a substantial and genuine dispute when setting aside a statutory demand. In this article, we review the recent determinations of the Bankruptcy Division of the Supreme Court of Mauritius (Bankruptcy Division) in which it re-affirmed the tests to determine an application to set aside a statutory demand under section 181 of the Insolvency Act 2009 (‘Insolvency Act’).

Dispute Resolution analysis: An application by a Russian trustee in bankruptcy has succeeded in striking out some parts of a defence to a claim that a share transfer was a sham or a transaction defrauding creditors. Other parts of the defence were not, however struck out.

Kireeva (as trustee and bankruptcy manager of Bedzhamov) v Zolotova and Basel Properties Limited [2024] EWHC 552 (Ch)

What are the practical implications of this case?

The duties of directors in relation to companies in Mauritius are laid out under the Companies Act 2001 (‘Companies Act’) and more specifically under Section 143 which sets out in detail that directors have a duty to act in good faith and in the best interests of the company on which they are appointed.

At a hearing in mid-March, the Delaware bankruptcy court held Camshaft Capital Fund, LP, Camshaft Capital Advisors, LLC, Camshaft Capital Management (collectively, “Camshaft”) and William Cameron Morton, principal of Camshaft, in civil contempt. The case is noteworthy because the court not only imposed monetary sanctions but also ordered civil confinement to compel Camshaft and Morton to comply with the court’s prior discovery order. The court issued a supplementary opinion on April 3, 2024, after Camshaft appealed.

The UK Jurisdiction Taskforce (UKJT) has published its "Legal Statement on Digital Assets and English Insolvency Law." The Statement confirms the view that digital assets are a form of personal property to which insolvency laws apply. It also affirms that the current approach taken by the English courts to determine whether they are the appropriate venue for the commencement of insolvency proceedings works for a company dealing in digital assets.

Customers are the lifeblood of a retail company. Through purchases of merchandise, they provide necessary liquidity for the retailer’s operations and going-concern value. For many retailers, this liquidity often comes in the form of customer deposits for merchandise to be manufactured by the retailer and received by customers at a future date.

The Belgian Constitutional Court addressed in a recent judgment the treatment of creditors in a collective debt settlement procedure. The central question was whether a different treatment of creditors, depending on whether they benefit from security over financial collateral, can be justified by objective criteria and whether this aligns with the constitutional principles of equality and non-discrimination.

Since the court finds the different treatment unconstitutional, the judgment impacts the enforcement rights of pledgees of financial collateral granted by private individuals.

In a world of business, unforeseen circumstances can often arise that lead a company to financial distress or near insolvency. During such times, the appointment of a receiver is a common legal remedy that serves to protect the interests of lenders.