Introduction

Today, the UK Supreme Court considered for the first time the existence, content and engagement of the so-called “creditor duty”: the alleged duty of a company’s directors to consider, or to act in accordance with, the interests of the company’s creditors when the company becomes insolvent, or when it approaches, or is at real risk of, insolvency.

The High Court in London gave judgment on Friday, 3 July 2020 on the relative ranking of over $10 billion of subordinated liabilities in the administrations of two entities in the Lehman Brothers group.

After receiving the Royal Assent on 10 May 2017, the Bankruptcy (Amendment) Bill 2016 (Bill) has finally come into force in Malaysia on 6 October 2017, marking the dawn of the new Malaysian Bankruptcy regime.

As highlighted in our previous November 2016 Client Alert, the Bill will rename the existing Bankruptcy Act 1967 to the Insolvency Act 1967 and will also have important implications, specifically to financial institutions and corporates whose loans / debts are secured by personal guarantees.

On 21 November 2016, the Bankruptcy (Amendment) Bill 2016 (Bill) was tabled in Parliament. The Bill will rename the Bankruptcy Act 1967 to the Insolvency Act 1967 and will have important implications, in particular to financial institutions and corporates whose loans / debts are secured by personal guarantees, once their amendments are incorporated in the existing Bankruptcy Act 1967 (Act) and are passed and in force.

The recent decisions in Re MF Global UK Ltd and Re Omni Trustees Ltd give conflicting views as to whether section 236 of the Insolvency Act 1986 has extra-territorial effect. In this article, we look at the reasoning in the two judgments and discuss a possible further argument for extra-territorial effect.

The conflicting rulings on section 236