In a previous article, we addressed some of the pitfalls of drafting subpoenas and provided some tips and tricks for the drafting of subpoenas (see “The Pitfalls of Subpoenas”). Since that article, the NSW Court of Appeal has addressed the issue again with a timely warning to insurers that improperly drafted subpoenas will be set aside, in whole or in part.

In Roering & Another NNO v Mahlangu (581/2015) [2016] ZASCA 79 heard recently, the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) considered the circumstances that might justify a witness under subpoena applying for enquiry proceedings to be set aside or for the witness to be excused from attending those proceedings.

The general rule is that a subpoenaed witness is compelled to attend, subject to procedural requirements being met, and the evidence sought being relevant to the insolvent company or entity.

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.

Hong Kong's highest court has recently considered the extent of the court's sweeping jurisdiction under section 221 of the Companies Ordinance, which enables it (amongst other things) to compel companies in liquidation to produce documents and for individuals to be examined on oath. The case will be welcomed by liquidators given that the court unanimously confirmed that it has jurisdiction to make such orders under this "extraordinary" section.

Practitioners Beware: When a client located in the state in which you practice law is served with a subpoena from a federal court located in another state, only the relevant federal court in your state (whether district or bankruptcy court) can adjudicate a motion to quash or otherwise modify the subpoena. A recent decision from a Colorado bankruptcy court, In re SBN Fog Cap II, LLC, 562 B.R. 771 (Bankr. D. Colo.

1. Introduction

As a result of the failure of over 200 banks and savings institutions in 2009—and the likelihood of 300 or more failures in the foreseeable future—the banking industry may be faced with another tsunami of litigation brought by the FDIC alleging liability against officers and directors for the failure of their respective institutions.

There are a number of ways directors and officers can get ready personally for potential FDIC litigation.

1. Take steps to understand the bank’s D&O insurance policies before the bank is closed. Determine whether policy coverage is offset by the fees for defense of claims. If so, understand the FDIC wants recovery, not protracted litigation.

A new bill introduced in California would prohibit debt settlement providers from charging any fees in excess of 15% of the amount of consumers’ savings as a result of any settlement.

The Debt Settlement Consumer Act (Senate Bill 708) was introduced in February 2011 by State Senator Ellen Corbett (R-San Mateo), who headed the California Senate Judiciary Committee that stopped a proposed regulation (Assembly Bill 350) last year that had drawn support from the debt settlement industry. The bill is supported by the Center For Responsible Lending and the Consumers Union.

In Simon v. FIA Card Services, N.A.,[1] the U.S.

The Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York recently held that a state’s post-confirmation investigation of a debtor’s post-confirmation conduct does not violate a plan confirmation order that enjoins actions against the debtor.  In re Velo Holdings, Inc. et al., 500 B.R. 693 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2013).