The case of Re Company A-E [2015] HCMP 2019/2015 demonstrates that the Court will take a practical approach in determining whether a funding arrangement infringes upon the common law rules against maintenance and champerty. The Court will consider commercial factors, such as the underlying rationale for the funding arrangement and the commercial character of the funder, alongside its analysis of the common law principles.

Two major Slovakian construction companies, both heavily dependent on large state contracts, have recently been restructured. Both of these cases have proven that Slovakian entrepreneurs, even those who live off of public money, perceive and utilise the current regulation of the restructuring procedure as a “legally safe way” to restart their businesses and get rid of a large portion of creditors. This option is viable also in a moment, when the only solution clearly is a bankruptcy petition.

Slovakia is getting ready for a major amendment of the Commercial Code, which will also amend the Slovak Act on Bankruptcy and Restructuring. Significant changes are expected in the corporate as well as bankruptcy and restructuring law sector which is underperforming and provides insufficient protection to creditors, despite many previous attempts to improve the regulation of this area.

On 17 July 2014, the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal gave judgment in the case of Moulin Global Eyecare Holdings Limited (in liquidation) (formerly known as Moulin International Holdings Limited) v Olivia Lee Sin Mei FACV No. 23 of 2013,providing helpful guidance on the expiry of applicable limitation periods.

Background

The High Court in Hong Kong recently examined the circumstances in which a liquidator was able to depart from their implied duty not to disclose documents obtained from third parties under statute or in the furtherance of their legal duty.