The High Court has ruled that directors breached their duties by taking up the company’s business opportunity for their own benefit, even if the company was unable to take up that opportunity by reason of its financial position: Davies v Ford & Ors [2020] EWHC 686.

Six days into 2020, the Indonesian Constitutional Court (“Constitutional Court”) began the New Year with a bang, issuing a decision that is not likely to be received well in loan markets.

The Constitutional Court has decided in favour of two petitioners (a married couple) and effectively changed the interpretation of Article 15(2) and (3) of the Fiducia Law (Law No. 42 of 1999), striking at the core principles of that law (“Constitutional Court Decision”).

In Swiss Cosmeceutics (Asia) Ltd [2019] HKCFI 336, Mr Justice Harris of the Hong Kong Court of First Instance declined to wind up a company despite it failing to establish a bona fide defence on substantial grounds. Mr Justice Harris commented on the difficulties presented by sporadic record keeping, and reiterated the principle that the burden of proof lies with the company to demonstrate a bona fide defence on substantial grounds, despite the existence of anomalies in the petitioner’s claim.

Facts

Despite evidence that a defendant knew he was facing potential proceedings which could bankrupt him, at the time he transferred assets to his son, the Court of Appeal held that this was not sufficient to find that the transfer was made for the purpose of defrauding creditors. Consequently, the transfer could not be unwound under s423 Insolvency Act 1996: JSC BTA Bank v Mukhtar Ablyazov, Madiyar Ablyazov [2018] EWCA Civ 1176.

ENGLAND AND WALES PREVIEW OF 2018 January 2018 LEGAL GUIDE HERBERT SMITH FREEHILLS 01 page CONTENTS Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02 Brexit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 03 Competition, Regulation and Trade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 05 Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 07 Corporate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 08 Dispute Resolution . . . . . . . .

Today the Queensland Supreme Court confirmed that the liquidators of an insolvent company are ‘executive officers’ of that company under Queensland’s environmental laws, which means that the liquidators are required to use available funds to cause the company to comply with its environmental obligations under an environmental protection order issued to Linc.

Former Emirati official arrested in Saudi Arabia over alleged fraud

Major insolvency reform: Getting the (ipso) factos straight

In brief

In Paul David Wood & Anor v Timothy Darren Baker & Ors, the joint trustees in bankruptcy of the bankrupt's property successfully obtained injunctions freezing the assets and business of the respondents and restraining them from dealing with such assets and business.  This case is an illustration of how the court may apply the "evasion principle", a principle identified in the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd, in piercing the corporate veil.

Background

In a recent decision, the High Court held that legal advice taken in relation to certain transactions was not protected by privilege, as there was prima facie evidence that the purpose of the advice was to structure the transactions in a way that avoided the client’s liability to pay local authority care charges and/or as a transaction defrauding creditors: London Borough of Brent v Kane [2014] EWHC 4564 (Ch).