In a recent decision by the Supreme Court of New South Wales regarding unfair preference claims - In the matter of Pacific Plumbing Group Pty Limited (in liquidation) [2024] NSWSC 525 – Justice Black provides guidance to liquidators on what is required to recover payments made to a third party on behalf of an insolvent company as unfair preferences.

In particular, the case highlighted that a liquidator has the burden of proof to show that:

When a legal dispute is brought to court, court fees are payable. Court fee is the fee levied by the judicial authority for handling the case. The amount of these fees depends, for example, on the nature of the case, a litigant’s income, and whether a natural person or legal entity is litigating. Under these circumstances, a (legal) person may qualify for the reduced court fee for insolvent persons.

Reduced court fee for insolvent persons

Pursuant to the Civil Cases Fees Act, the reduced court fee for the insolvent may be levied in the following two cases:

Insolvency proceedings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) are generally practical and solution-oriented. Creativity is rewarded and, if there is a conflict between insolvency law’s practical focus on achieving desirable commercial outcomes on the one hand, and the requirements—often technical in nature—under other statutes such as the Canada Business Corporations Act (CBCA) on the other, courts often apply insolvency law in a manner that gives priority to achieving those commercial outcomes.

The recent English High Court decision of Wright v Chappell related to the collapse of British Home Stores provides a landmark ruling of which directors of Cayman Islands companies need to be aware. This is the first time damages have been awarded against directors for 'misfeasant trading'. Directors may be held liable for any 'insolvency deepening' activity in failing to file for insolvency when it would be in the creditors' interests to do so.

Introduction

Introduction

BACKGROUND

The judgment of Chief ICC Judge Briggs in Becker (A Bankrupt) v Ford & Ors [2024] EWHC 1001 (Ch) provides a useful summary of the matters to which the court should have regard when considering an application to lift the suspension of a bankrupt’s discharge.

The New Bankruptcy Law (Federal Law Decree No 51 of 2023) came into effect in UAE on 1 May 2024, replacing the previous law (Federal Decree-Law No 9 of 2016). While maintaining much of the old law's structure, it introduces significant changes for creditors and debtors, including the recognition of both natural and legal persons as 'debtors'. The law retains emergency financial crisis provisions from the old law and is expected to impact restructuring and insolvency cases in the UAE.

Introduction

The Legal Statement applies areas of insolvency law to digital assets, providing valuable guidance on the approach English courts will take.

In the decision in Woodhouse, in the matter of Panoramic Resources Limited [2024] FCA 449, handed down this week (1 May 2024) by Feutrill J, the Federal Court of Australia considered the meaning of ‘Secured Property ‘as defined in a specific security deed and the extent to which phrases such as ‘…in respect of’ could expand the types of collateral the subject of that defined term (and hence the collateral the subject of the specific security d