Asset freeze measures enacted by the United Kingdom against designated persons (DPs) can, under certain circumstances, extend to entities “owned or controlled” by DPs. To date, there have been few—and at times partly contradictory—English court cases addressing the “ownership and control” criteria under the UK sanctions regime. The latest judgment in Hellard v OJSC Rossiysky Kredit Bank sought to reconcile the previous guidance provided by the courts in the Mints and Litasco cases.

The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 came into effect in the United Kingdom on 26 June 2020. It makes major changes to UK insolvency law. The full extent of those changes will only become apparent in the following months, as the courts and insolvency practitioners grapple with its 254 pages. Three strange aspects of the Act will fundamentally affect how financings to UK companies are structured and documented.

The measures include temporarily suspending wrongful trading liability for directors and implementing a new restructuring plan and moratorium to provide companies with a period of time to explore rescue options during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.

Singapore is set to adopt the recommendations of the Committee to Strengthen Singapore as an International Centre for Debt Restructuring.

The theory of universality in insolvency, along with globalisation, has gained much traction across many jurisdictions in recent years. Briefly, the universality theory proposes that an insolvency proceeding has worldwide effect over all the assets of the insolvent company, wherever they may be.

The term “globalisation” is associated with expansion and the free movement of capital and resources. Funds raised in Country A can be invested in a variety of different countries for better returns. In times of economic expansion, it can be unfashionable to consider insolvency issues. This may explain why insolvency practitioners find themselves holding many discussions among themselves.

Singapore’s Court of Appeal has just laid down guidance on how professionals should approach their fee engagements with clients.¹ The judgment reveals an expectation of strict adherence to the terms of the letter of engagement. It also serves as an admonishment to retain a detailed inventory of the work done.

Background

Assenagon Asset Management S.A. v Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Limited (formerly Anglo Irish Bank Corporation Limited) [2012] EWHC 2090 (Ch)