The business community in Russia is going to see an increase in default claims due to the mounting credit crisis. Many companies will not survive in such an environment and a wave of insolvencies is likely to ensue. The prospect of this has forced the State Duma to focus on developing a robust response. New bills, which would transform the Russian insolvency landscape, are currently under consideration.

The business community is going to see an increase in default claims due to the mounting credit crisis. Many companies will not survive in such an environment and a wave of insolvencies is likely to ensue. The prospect of this has forced the State Duma to focus on developing a robust response. New bills, which would transform the Russian insolvency landscape, are currently under consideration.

In Warren v. Warren the British Columbia Supreme Court recently appointed an equitable receiver over the assets of a judgment to debtor, notwithstanding that the Plaintiff did not have any security.

Pursuant to an Order in Council dated July 4, 2008, July 7, 2008 was established as the date that certain of the provisions of S.C. 2005, c. 47 (the "Insolvency Reform Act 2005") and S.C. 2007, c. 36 (the "Insolvency Reform Act 2007") came into force. The Wage Earner Protection Program Act (the "WEPPA") as well as certain of the amendments to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (the "BIA") made by the Insolvency Reform Act 2005 and the Insolvency Reform Act 2007 are, as a result, now in force.

A recent decision by the Delaware bankruptcy court highlights the issues which must be considered by private equity firms, investment funds and other entities who play an active role in the management of their financially distressed portfolio companies.

Ernst & Young Inc. was appointed by the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta as the Receiver and Manager of an Alberta Corporation named Klytie’s Development Inc., its Colorado subsidiary, and the two primary shareholders of the debtor companies

The administrators of St George’s Property Services (London) Ltd appealed from a decision granting the application of the 2 shareholders and directors of the company to remove the administrators and to appoint replacement insolvency practitioners who were willing to make an application under s 244 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (UK) in respect of an exorbitant credit transaction to which the company was a party.

Jollands v Gull concerns an application by the liquidators of a company to set aside insolvent transactions. The transactions involved funds from the sale of the company's business being paid, via the company's accountant, to three minority shareholders, which then transferred their shares to the respondent shareholders (or in one case, a respondent shareholder's family trust). The respondents' current accounts were in credit at the time.

The decision of the English High Court in Willmont and Finch v Shlosberg clarifies how insolvency practitioners can use and disclose documents obtained under compulsion or litigation to related insolvency estates.

The English Court of Appeal has recently decided that a corporation that held shares in a company remained a shareholder notwithstanding the shareholding company's dissolution.

BWE Estates Limited had two shareholders: an individual named David who held 75% of its shares and a company, Belvedere Limited, which held the remaining 25%. Although Belvedere was dissolved in 1996, it remained listed as a shareholder in BWE's share register.