In brief
This article discusses the defining features of Bermuda’s insolvency landscape and the primary insolvency and rescue procedures available under Bermuda law, including compulsory liquidations, provisional liquidations and schemes of arrangements. The case of Chishti v Afiniti Ltd is presented as a recent example of a company successfully availing itself of a restructuring plan through the use of ‘light touch’ provisional liquidation.
This is the latest in our series of discussions about how clients have used HSF Kramer's Decision Analysis models as part of their strategy for disputes management.
This week, financial disputes specialist Donny Surtani describes its use in a sell-or-hold decision relating to a distressed debt holding:
The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in CL Financial Ltd (in Liquidation)[1] has provided helpful guidance on applications for approving liquidators’ remuneration.
This article examines the recent decision in Maher & Anor v Investalet Ltd & Anor.
Section 234 Insolvency Act 1986 provides:
“(2) Where any person has in his possession or control any property, books, papers or records to which the company appears to be entitled, the court may require that person forthwith (or within such period as the court may direct) to pay, deliver, convey, surrender or transfer the property, books, papers or records to the office-holder.”
In Nordic Power Partners P/S & Ors v Rio Alto Energia, Empreendimentos E Participacoes LTDA & Ors [2025] EWHC 2875 (Comm), the Commercial Court reconfirmed its willingness to grant interim relief to an energy investor in the context of international projects (here related to Brazil). Specifically, this decision provides an interesting insight into steps that can be taken to prevent funds being received by a party that may soon become insolvent (which risks creditors being left without a satisfactory remedy once a dispute is resolved).
On insolvency, the pari passu principle applies, meaning unsecured creditors rank equally in the distribution of available assets. That principle helps explain why a creditor who has obtained a judgment debt but has not completed enforcement (for instance by obtaining a final charging order) will usually be barred from doing so once insolvency intervenes.
Welcome to the latest edition of the Financial Regulation Weekly Bulletin.
If you would like to discuss in more detail, please contact your relationship partner or email one of our Financial Regulation team.
Developments this week are in relation to:
|
For reasons explained in this blog, they did not in the case of Conway and others v Plass and others [2025] EWHC 2625 (Ch) but there could be situations where it might.
In Conway and others v Plass and others, the High Court has provided guidance on when contract liabilities incurred by administrators will be treated as administration expenses under the Lundy Granite principle.
Factual Background
Introduction
In a recent decision, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) provided useful clarification on how TUPE operates in insolvency scenarios when a provisional liquidator is appointed. The judgment confirms that the TUPE exception for terminal insolvency proceedings can apply earlier than some employers and buyers may expect, with the result that employee transfer protections may be disapplied before a winding-up order is made.
TUPE and insolvency