Fulltext Search

Key Points

  • COMI of Jersey companies held to be in England and Wales 
  • Argument of improper motive generally insignificant where purpose of administration can be achieved

The Facts

Key Points

  • Costs incurred in preparing to comply with disclosure orders not payable by liquidators
  • Protection for wasted costs should have been sought earlier in the proceedings

The Facts

Key Points

  • Provisions of the Civil Procedure Rules apply to applications for an extension of time to apply for rescission of winding up order
  • Any such extensions of time should be exceptional and for a very short period

The Facts

Key Points

  • A dividend is a ‘transaction’ and therefore can be challenged under s 423 IA 86
  • A duty to act in the best interests of creditors does not arise simply because there is a risk of insolvency which is not ‘remote’

The Facts

In a landmark judgment on 9 September 2016, the High Court of Singapore exercised its inherent jurisdiction to grant, on an ex parte basis, interim orders for the recognition of Hanjin's Korean rehabilitation proceedings in Singapore.

Having launched the original version three years ago, we have refreshed our Safeguarding Your Business guide as an eBook. The guide assists clients in protecting themselves either proactively or reactively in respect of a counterparty’s insolvency with new sections on trusts and examples of how we have helped, using some of the principles raised.

In a landmark judgment on 9 September 2016, the High Court of Singapore exercised its inherent jurisdiction to grant, on an ex parte basis, interim orders for the recognition of the Hanjin Shipping Co Ltd (Hanjin Shipping) Korean rehabilitation proceedings in Singapore.

Key Points

  • Interpretation of EU case law on protection of pension payments on employer insolvency not “entirely free from doubt”

The Facts

The claimant (C) was a member of the T&N defined benefit pension scheme from 1971 to 1998. In 2006, the scheme entered a PPF assessment period and C calculated that his pension under the PPF would, as a result of caps and limitations on indexation, be roughly 67% less than what he had previously expected.

This is a follow-up to our previous client update on Swiber Holdings Limited written on 29 July 2016. To view our previous update, please click here.