Sultani Decrees

Sultani Decree No. 39/2016

Enacting the Law on the continued validity of the licences of foreign accountancy and audit firms and the exemption of Omani owners of such firms from the full time requirement.

The Law extends the validity of the licences and the exemption up to 31/12/2017 renewable by a decision from the Ministers Council.

Issued on 18 August 2016. Effective from the day after the date of publication.

Sultani Decree No. 40/2016

Introduction

Nigel Barnett talks about bribes and other proprietary rights in insolvencies.

Introduction

For over 150 years, it has been a principle of English law that if an agent takes a bribe or a secret commission, he is liable to account to his principal for the amount received. However, there has been conflicting authority and academic debate as to whether the principal merely has a personal claim against the agent or whether he can assert a proprietary claim to the monies received and any profits made therefrom.

MiFID 2 package published in OJEU: The text of the recast Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID 2) and its related Regulation (MiFIR) were published in OJEU on 12 June and will come into force on the 20th day following that of their publication. Member States have to transpose MiFID 2 by 3 July 2016 and both it and MiFIR will apply from 3 January 2017.

The UK Treasury and Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) have been drip-feeding the industry rules and practical details of the transfer of consumer credit (CC) regulation to FCA. FCA has now published the final form of its detailed rules in its Consumer Credit Sourcebook (CONC), with feedback and practical advice. The rules apply from 1 April 2014 with limited grace periods only. It is critical that all firms carrying on credit-related regulated activities know what the changes mean for them.

In a thorough appellate decision, a United States District Court in Florida has reversed the portion of a Bankruptcy Court’s determination that the repayment of over $400 million in loans was a fraudulent transfer. As discussed in more detail below, the decision is significant in the context of complex, multiple entity structures in determining (i) which affiliated entity (or unpaid creditors of that entity) can recover a transfer and (ii) what constitutes reasonably equivalent value for the transfer.

Last month the Insolvency Working Group released its second and final report, dealing with voidable transactions and Ponzi schemes.  The Group's first report was released in July 2016 and dealt with regulation of insolvency practitioners and voluntary liquidations.  In the second report, the Working Group make a number of recommendations on the voidable transaction regime and regarding protection from Ponzi schemes.  In relation to voidable transactions, the primary recommendations were repealing the "gave value" part of the defence available to creditors with a view to incre

Another company being investigated by the FMA and the SFO for allegedly operating a Ponzi scheme, Hansa Limited, was placed into liquidation by the High Court in late November 2016.  Those investors who lost money may be interested to learn that one of the liquidators appointed to Hansa, Mr Damien Grant, is a convicted fraudster, who had also given evidence to a High Court judge and jury that was subsequently 'discredited', that an accessory to the frauds was the originator and brains behind the frauds.  Proposed licensing of insolvency practitioners may well exclude those with di

James Developments Limited (JDL) went into liquidation on 6 July 2009.

In November 2012, the liquidator issued proceedings against a trust for repayment of a loan, six years and one month after the loan was made.  The trustees argued the claim was time-barred.  The liquidator argued there had been a fraudulent cover-up of the loan and that the High Court should postpone the limitation period under section 28 of the Limitation Act 1950 (Act).

Bilta (UK) Limited (Bilta) and its liquidators brought a claim against the defendants for damages and equitable compensation on the basis of conspiracy to defraud and injure Bilta and for dishonest assistance by (among others) the 6th and 7th defendants in breach of fiduciary duties by Bilta's directors. The defendants argued that the unlawful conduct of Bilta's directors and sole shareholder could be attributed to the company itself, meaning that the action brought by Bilta and its liquidators would fail.