Welcome to the sixth edition of our quarterly disputes newsletter, which covers key developments in the dispute resolution world over the last three months or so.

The judgment in the much-publicised case of Akhmedovav Akhmedov & Ors[i] in April 2021 is a telling example of where the English Courts have exercised wide-reaching statutory powers to set aside or vary dispositions on trust with extra-territorial effect, notwithstanding the assets are held by offshore trustees, outside the Court’s j

A number of key decisions from the English courts in 2021 illustrate the litigation trends that are likely to have implications for the financial services industry in 2022 and beyond (see below “Cases to watch in 2022”).

Market misconduct and mis-selling

In the first of a series of claims issued by ECU Group Plc in relation to alleged wrongdoing in the foreign exchange markets by a number of banks, the High Court held that:

Every now and then, (i) something is blatantly obvious, but (ii) those in charge insist that what seems obvious is actually false. Such a disconnect breeds distrust.

That’s precisely what exists in our bankruptcy system. The U.S. Constitution requires that bankruptcy laws be “uniform . . . throughout the United States”:

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) vide its order dated 3 January 2022 in Jayanthi Ravi v Chemizol Additives Pvt Ltd ruled that the advance extended by a director to the company which is recorded as a loan in the minutes of the meeting of the board of directors would be classified as financial debt under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC).

There has been much discussion concerning the recent district court appellate decision in Purdue Pharma. See In re Purdue Pharma, Case No. 21 cv 7532 (Master Case), 2021 WL 5979108 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 16, 2021). We have been tracking developments relating to Purdue Pharma and issues concerning third-party releases: Purdue Pharma: Is Protection of Third Parties by the Automatic Stay an Oxymoron?

Legislation

简介

最近在Nuoxi Capital Ltd (In Liquidation in the British Virgin Islands) v Peking University Founder Group Co Ltd [2021] HKCFI 3817一案中，香港法院裁定，尽管香港法院承认维持完好契据（「维好契据」）的提供者在内地所提出的清盘程序并向管理人提供各种协助，但境外债券持有人在维好契据下的权利仍应根据合约的专属司法管辖权条款在香港裁决。

维持完好安排与释疑函件类似，都是内地企业支持其附属公司发行境外债券的常用增强信贷方式。由于维好契据不构成担保，内地企业集团往往以此规避禁止为境外债务提供抵押的规定。

背景

In Re AFM (1932) Ltd (in liquidation) [2021] EWHC 3460 (Ch) the court confirmed that where an applicant is already contractually entitled – as against another party - to be reimbursed, together with interest, by that other party in an amount equivalent to the value transferred by that applicant under a related transaction, there cannot be a transaction at an undervalue pursuant to section 238 of the Insolvency Act 1986.

Facts

In its recent decision in Morton as Liquidator of MJ Woodman Electrical Contractors Pty Ltd v Metal Manufacturers Pty Limited [2021] FCAFC 228, the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia (the Court) held that statutory set-off, under section 553C(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (theAct), is not available to a creditor in respect of a liquidator’s claim against that creditor for the recovery of an unfair preference under s 588FA of the Act.