The UAE has pioneered a new insolvency regime for individuals or natural persons with the issuance of the stand-alone Insolvency Law No. 19 of 2019 (Insolvency Law), which has come to effect as of 30 November 2019.
The Insolvency Law is intended to provide sufficient protections to natural or civil persons who are facing financial distress and are unable to settle their debts, unlike the UAE Bankruptcy Law which regulates commercial companies and individuals considered as traders under the Commercial Transactions Code.
The UAE has pioneered a new insolvency regime for individuals or natural persons with the issuance of the stand-alone Insolvency Law No. 19 of 2019 (Insolvency Law), which has come to effect as of 30 November 2019.
The Insolvency Law is intended to provide sufficient protections to natural or civil persons who are facing financial distress and are unable to settle their debts, unlike the UAE Bankruptcy Law which regulates commercial companies and individuals considered as traders under the Commercial Transactions Code.
This week’s TGIF considers the process that a liquidator may follow when a director fails to attend at an examination. It considers the appeal in Mensink v Parbery [2018] FCAFC 101, in which the Court set out the relevant differences between arrest warrants issued to require a director to attend an examination, and arrest warrants to answer charges for contempt.
What happened?
In Stewart v Atco Controls Pty Limited (in liquidation) [2014] HCA 15, the High Court confirmed the Universal Distributing principle that a liquidator is entitled to be paid his or her remuneration and expenses in realising assets in priority to a secured creditor.
BACKGROUND
How far do liquidators’ powers to demand documents for public examinations extend? Which documents can they request and from whom can they request them?
In this week’s TGIF, we consider these questions in the context of the recent case of Re Cathro [2018] FCA 1138.
BACKGROUND
In Willmott Growers Group Inc v Willmott Forests Limited (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (In Liquidation) [2013] HCA 51, the High Court has confirmed that a liquidator of a landlord company has the power to disclaim a lease. The effect of the disclaimer is to terminate the leasehold interest of the lessee.
FACTS
This week’s TGIF considers the case of In the matter of Specialist Australian Security Group Pty Ltd (in liq) [2018] VSC 199 in which the Court considered the priority of administrators' right to an indemnity out of company property.
Background
Like the mythical bird that dies and then resurrects, phoenixing is the deliberate liquidation of a company to avoid paying tax, creditors or employees and then the ‘resurrection’ of the business through a different entity.
It is illegal and particularly prevalent in the construction sector. It’s time for the states to take action against phoenixing through better licensing of builders.
This week’s TGIF considers the decision of EH 2015 Pty Ltd (in liq) v Caratti (No 3) [2017] WASC 210 which concerned the rights of a liquidator to funds paid into court as security by a company which subsequently became insolvent.
What happened?
On 20 January 2016, a liquidator was appointed to a trustee company pursuant to an order of the Federal Court.
The Federal Court decision of Crumpler (as liquidator and joint representative) of Global Tradewaves Ltd (a company registered in the British Virgin Islands) v Global Tradewaves (in liquidation), in the matter of Global Tradewaves Ltd (in liquidation)[2013] FCA 1127 provides an illustrative example of the way that cross border insolvency recognition can be used to aid a foreign administration.
Facts