In today’s realities, there often arise situations where debtors cannot fulfill their obligations for reasons one way or another related to the war. In addition, many enterprises are located in the temporarily occupied territory, and their owners do not have access to enterprises at all. In such a case, unfortunately, applying to the debtor with a claim is not always an effective option for protecting the creditor’s rights.

In Hunt v Singh, the Court referred to the Supreme Court's landmark decision in BTI v Sequana (see our alert) in deciding when the directors' duty to creditors arose.

Background

Marylebone Warwick Balfour Management Limited (the Company), entered a tax avoidance scheme between 2002 and 2010 which the directors, on professional advice, believed to be valid.

In practice, bankruptcy of a defendant employer during court proceedings related to employee receivables may be confusing for both the parties of a dispute and the courts handling the proceedings.

The Court of Appeal has recently referred to established case law that the court will only interfere with the act of an officeholder “if he has done something so utterly unreasonable and absurd that no reasonable man would have done it”.

While the judge in the lower court had not made any error of law, on the facts there were identifiable flaws in the judge's reasoning that the trustees' decision not to join in the proceedings was perverse.

The judge had failed to recognise that:

In NSP Unsgaard (Pty) Ltd v Master of the High Court, Cape Town and Another, the applicant, NSP Unsgaard (Pty) Ltd sought to review and set aside a decision of the first respondent, the Master of the High Court made on 28 January 2022 in terms of section 46 of the Insolvency Act,1936 (“the Act”). The decision in question permitted the liquidators of the second respondent, Green Tissue (Pty) Ltd ), to disregard a set off applied by NSP in its dealings with Green Tissue before the latter’s liquidation.

Judgment creditors should be aware that the English Court of Appeal has given guidance on the proper construction of s423 Insolvency Act 1986 (transactions defrauding creditors)¹.

INTRODUCTION:

In a recent judgement of Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Raman Ispat Private Ltd. and Ors. (being Civil Appeal No.7976 of 2019), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that Section 238 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC/Code”) overrides the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003, despite the latter containing two specific provisions being Section 173 and 174 which have overriding effect over all other laws.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND:

Following are this week’s summaries of the Court of Appeal for Ontario for the week of September 4, 2023.

In AssessNet Inc. v. Ferro Estate, the Court set aside an order dismissing the action, finding that the summary judgment motion judge had erred in determining the issue of discoverability of a claim against a trustee in bankruptcy.

Torgersrud v Lightstone is a family law decision where the Court dismissed an appeal from an order setting aside a marriage contract entered into in Quebec in 1988.

Where a creditor believes that a debtor is insolvent, any “third-party application” that it makes for the insolvency of the debtor must be well substantiated.

Decision

The District Court of Hamburg recently considered an application for insolvency on grounds of illiquidity due to default in social security contributions.

A landmark decision of the German Federal Court (13 June 2006 – IX ZB 238/05) held that the illiquidity of a company could be assumed where it was in default for more than six months of social security contributions.

In BRASS Trustees Ltd v Goldstone the High Court has approved a decision by a scheme trustee to issue winding up petitions against the pension scheme's sponsoring employers. The trustee sought the court's approval under rules which allow a trustee to seek the court's approval where the decision a trustee is about to make is "particularly momentous".