Yesterday, the Supreme Court (SC) handed down judgment in Philipp v Barclays Bank UK Plc [2023] UKSC 25. In summary, the SC found that banks do not owe a duty to refrain from executing customers’ direct payment instructions where there may be an attempt to defraud the customer.

It's out! The Supreme Court has handed down its keenly awaited judgment on whether banks owe a Quincecare duty not to carry out a customer's instructions in cases of suspected fraud.

In certain circumstances the official liquidator of a Cayman company may be able to take action to recover assets which have been transferred in the run up to the company’s insolvency. It is important for those concerned with the affairs of a Cayman company in the twilight of insolvency to be aware of the statutory powers available to the official liquidator and the Grand Court in the Cayman Islands.

Summary

The High Court (Mr Justice Quinn) has in the case of Mac Interiors Limited [2023] IEHC 395appointed an examiner by way of the direct appointment procedure to a company incorporated outside of the area to which the European Insolvency Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2015/848) (the “EIR”) applies. This is the first time the procedure has been used by the Irish courts in such circumstances.

The Federal Labour Court (Bundesarbeitsgericht, BAG) had to decide in which case a social compensation plan endowment by the conciliation committee is economically unjustifiable for a company outside of insolvency. This shall be the case if the fulfilment of the social compensation plan obligation would lead to illiquidity, balance sheet over-indebtedness or an unacceptable reduction of the company's equity. If the endowment was economically unjustifiable, the discretion of the conciliation committee was exceeded and the social compensation plan therefore invalid.

Subchapter V eligibility requires a debtor to be “engaged in” commercial/business activities.

Case Law Consensus

Case law consensus is that such activities must exist on the petition filing date. That means a debtor cannot utilize Subchapter V when:

• business assets are fully-liquidated;
• unpaid debts are the only remnant of the failed business; and
• prospects for resuming such activities are nil.

So . . . here’s the question: Is that the right eligibility standard?

I say, “No.”

A Hypothetical

Greylag Goose Leasing 1410 Designated Activity Company v P.T. Garuda Indonesia Ltd

In a decision that appears to be the first of its kind, the NSW Court of Appeal has found that a national airline should be afforded foreign State immunity against a winding up application.

Key points:

Recently, in In re Moon Group Inc., a bankruptcy court said no, but the district court, which has agreed to review the decision on an interlocutory appeal, seems far less sure.

In recent years much ink has been spilled opining on the so called 'Quincecare' duty of care, and the limits of it (see links to our recent insolvency law updates covering the topic below). The judgment in Barclays Bank plc v Quincecare Ltd [1992] 4 All ER 363 was a first instance decision on Steyn J, in which he found that a bank has a duty not to execute a payment instruction given by an agent of its customer without making inquiries if the bank has reasonable grounds for believing that the agent is attempting to defraud the customer.

Two recent cases, Re Guangdong Overseas Construction Corporation [2023] HKCFI 1340 (the “GOCC Case“) and Re Trinity International Brands Limited [2023] HKCFI 1581 (the “Trinity Case“), reaffirm