A recent UK Supreme Court decision establishes that where a director unlawfully transfers property to a company he controls, a subsequent breach of duty claim will not be subject to a limitation period.

The provision in question under the UK Limitation Act is mirrored in the Hong Kong Limitation Ordinance (Cap 347), so it will be interesting to see whether this decision will be applied by the Hong Kong Courts.

Key points

• To attribute a director’s fraud to a company, the company must be a one-man company

• A one-man company requires no innocent directors or shareholders

The Facts

Singularis Holdings Ltd (the “Company“) was set up to deal with the personal assets of Mr Al Sanea. Mr Sanea was at all the times the sole shareholder of the Company, though he was only one of a number of directors of the Company.

Briefings

A recent ruling by the English High Court in BILTA v RBS1, concerning EU Emissions Allowances (“EUAs” or “carbon-credits”) trading has re-opened the debate on when materials forming part of an internal investigation can benefit from litigation privilege. The decision further undermines the restrictive approach taken by Andrews J in SFO v ENRC2 when applying the “sole or dominant purpose test” to dual-purpose communications.

Background – Emissions Trading Fraud

There are two aspects of wrongful trading and misfeasance that are of interest (i) board directors (and those advising the board) must be aware of the duties that the directors are subject to in performing their role as directors and the liability that attaches to breach of those duties and (ii) companies may be affected by the wrongful trading/misfeasance of customers/suppliers which impacts on trading.

The recent decisions in Avonwick Holdings Ltd and others v Shlosberg and Leeds v Lemos have restricted the ability of trustees in bankruptcy to use privileged documents belonging to the bankrupt. What do these rulings mean for trustees?

The Trustee in Bankruptcy's purpose and powers

This month the new Insolvency Rules 2016 came into force, replacing the Insolvency Rules 1986. We cover this, and other issues affecting professionals in the insolvency and fraud investigation industry below.

The recent case of Singularis Holdings Ltd v Daiwa Capital Markets Europe Ltd [2017] EWHC 257 (Ch) (Singularis) is an important decision affecting any institution that handles client payments, including banks. It decided that a stock broker was liable in negligence for having breached its duty of care to its customer, Singularis Holdings Ltd (in liquidation) (Singularis), by paying monies out of its client account on the instruction of one of Singularis' directors and its only shareholder, Mr Al Sanea.

Background

Speed Read:The recent decision of R v Neuberg serves to further entrench the distinction between the two classes of offences for determining benefit under the confiscation regime.Natasha Reurts provides an overview of the decision and assess the implications for corporate and financial crime cases that follow.

Case Summary

Background

ADVISORY | DISPUTES | TRANSACTIONS “Gagging orders”: an office holder’s secret weapon December 2016 Introduction Practitioners are fully aware of the extensive powers available under ss 235 and 236 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) allowing administrators and liquidators as office holders (OHs) to require individuals and organisations to disgorge information.

The Facts

On 12 September 2012, the joint liquidators of a company brought claims for wrongful trading against its former directors, arguing that they knew (or ought to have concluded) before the date it entered liquidation that the company could not avoid insolvent liquidation. At first instance, Registrar Jones held that the directors were liable for wrongful trading and should pay compensation of £35,000. The directors appealed this decision.

The Decision