In Prest v Petrodel Resources Limited (in Liquidation)(1) the Manx court recently confirmed that where security for costs orders is appropriate, the amount ordered will not always be restricted to a sum representing the extra costs incurred in enforcing an order in the jurisdiction in which the claimant is resident or in which assets are situated.
The first anniversary of the credit crunch passed in recent weeks and the economic turbulence in this country has been reflected in the sharp increase in the number of insolvencies over the past 12 months.
The Isle of Man case Simpson v Light House Living Ltd concerned an appeal on a successful set-off claim brought by Australian supermodel Elle Macpherson. When the bank Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander Limited entered liquidation, Macpherson had £2,541,680.09 deposited in the bank in her personal capacity and potentially owed the bank over £7,801,727 pounds by way of the company Light House Living Limited.
A recent Isle of Man case, Interdevelco Limited v. Waste2energy Group Holdings plc, demonstrates that the debate around how courts should approach international insolvency legislation rages on. The decision emphasised the importance of the principle of universality, the concept that there should be one insolvency proceeding under which all creditors’ claims can be collectively assessed and administered. This approach contrasts with that taken by the Supreme Court of England and Wales in the two recent cases of Rubin v.
The Isle of Man Appeal Court (the Staff of Government Division) judgment in Spirit ofMontpelier v Lombard Manx[2015] has addressed important issues in relation to company and insolvency laws and the powers of judges to create and develop principles of common law in order to serve the interests of justice.
On July 14, 2014 the Tel Aviv District Court rendered its decision with regard to an application filed in the case of Dayan v. Ganden Holdings Ltd., concerning IDB Holdings Corporation Ltd., formerly part of the consortium owned by business tycoon Nochi Dankner ("the Company").
* This article was first published by INSOL International on April 17, 2015.
Courts have held that the Bankruptcy Code's avoidance powers do not apply extraterritorially, SIPC v. Bernard L Madoff Inv. Sec. LLC ("Madoff"),480 B.R. 501 (Bankr. S.D. N.Y. 2012); Barclay v. Swiss Fin. Corp Ltd., 347 B.R. 708 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2006); Societe Generale plc v. Maxwell Commc'n Corp plc "Maxwell I"),186 B.R. 807 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) and others have found to the contrary, Weisfelner v. Blavatnik (In re Lyondell),543 B.R. 127 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2016); Sec. Investor Prot. Corp. v. BLMIS (In re BLMIS) , 513 B.R. (S.D.N.Y.
Client Update
The Insolvency and Rehabilitation Law, 2018
On March 5, 2018 the Israeli parliament passed the Insolvency and Rehabilitation Law, 2018 (the "Law"). The Law establishes, for the first time, a modern and consolidated set of insolvency laws for individuals and corporations in Israel. In addition to the codification and consolidation of existing insolvency and rehabilitation rules from multiple sources, the Law makes a number of changes to these existing rules in Israel.
Set out below are some of the key elements of this important new Law.
According to a ruling handed down recently by the Israeli Supreme Court, when a real estate asset is sold before the seller enters bankruptcy proceedings, and the seller has not paid the betterment tax, the local council is not obligated to grant the buyer approval for registering the property under his name. Thus, the buyer will be required to pay the betterment tax.