Upon being appointed, insolvency practitioners are often faced with existing litigation involving the company or person they have been appointed to.

There are a multitude of factors that the practitioner needs to consider in relation to existing litigation. This article sets out some key considerations for administrators, liquidators, receivers and trustees in bankruptcy, as well as the practical steps a practitioner should follow. Although the article refers to practitioners appointed to companies, the principles are also generally applicable for Bankruptcy Trustees.

In ACN 093 117 232 Pty Ltd (In Liq) v Intelara Engineering Consultants Pty Ltd (In Liq) [2019] FCA 1489, the court considered whether a “legal phoenix” arrangement entered into after receiving professional advice was in fact a voidable transaction.

The facts

Intelara Pty Ltd (OldCo) operated an engineering consultancy business and after experiencing financial difficulties in 2014 sought professional advice concerning the potential restructure of the company.

Section 29 of the Bankruptcy Ordinance (Cap. 6) (BO) allows a trustee in bankruptcy to apply to the Courts for orders compelling disclosure of material documents and/or information of the bankrupt in order for the trustee to carry out his/her duties under the bankruptcy. For the authors’ previous article on Section 29, please see here.

Section 29 provides that:

In a special edition of the latest bi-monthly magazine, Israel Desks, we explore the unprecedented impact of the Coronavirus pandemic on Israeli and global law firms and their clients. Managing and Senior Partners, amongst Israel's leading law firms discuss what issues have concerned clients and how they have been coping. We also talk to leaders in Germany, Italy, UK, U.S., Poland and China to find out how they have been handling this crisis and what legal advice their clients have been seeking.

It goes without saying that Insolvency Practitioners must behave honestly and with integrity in all their professional dealings. IPs must handle money and assets in a way which justifies the trust placed in them. An IP caught overcharging or misusing assets should, rightfully, expect a severe sanction after an investigation by their regulator. But the extent to which a regulator’s jurisdiction extends beyond an IP’s professional role, and into his or her private life, may come as a surprise.

In several recent judgments in cases centring on complex commercial and regulatory disputes, the High Court has grappled with a number of important aspects of legal professional privilege under English law. Certain of these decisions, and their implications for parties to such disputes, are highlighted below.

Litigation privilege: sole or dominant purpose

Introduction

As of 1 January 2015, the Au;trian criminal procedure code ("StPO") ctifferentiates between      suspects     (Verdachtiger)      and

subJect    to    loose    and    unsubstantiated

APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL DISMISSED

38144 Ronald Baldovi v. Her Majesty the Queen 

(Man.)

Courts – Judges – Reasonable apprehension of bias

In our update this month we take a look at three cases that provide helpful clarification from the courts on issues that will be of interest to the insolvency and fraud industry - the key message from each case confirms:

Defendant's threat of insolvency did not prevent adjudicator's decision being enforced.

Good evening.

Below are the summaries of this week’s civil decisions of the Court of Appeal for Ontario.