This is the message the courts are sending to office holders seeking approval of their fees. In two recent English High Court decisions, both handed down by HHJ Cawson KC, the courts clearly expect office-holders, as fiduciaries, to produce a sufficient and proportionate level of information to justify the level of fees being claimed.

The question of whether it is competent for the court to order a retrospective administration order has been the subject of much debate before the English courts. However, until now, there have been no reported Scottish decisions dealing with the point.

On Wednesday, 13 September, the Economy and Fair Work Committee (the "Committee") of the Scottish Parliament heard evidence regarding the general principles of the Bankruptcy and Diligence (Scotland) Bill (the "Bill"). At this stage, the Committee is responsible for examining the Bill and making a recommendation about whether Parliament should support the main purpose of the Bill.

If a debt arises from a contract that contains an exclusive jurisdiction clause (EJC) in favour of a foreign court, how will the Hong Kong court deal with a bankruptcy petition based on that debt? A highly anticipated judgment from Hong Kong’s highest court suggests that the bankruptcy petition will likely be dismissed, and that the foreign EJC will be given effect. But, as we will discuss below, the Court seems to leave other possibilities open, depending on the facts in a particular case.

There are often difficult issues encountered when the worlds of bankruptcy and probate collide. This case is a good example.

The case concerns section 283A of the Insolvency Act 1986 ("s283A") which provides that a bankruptcy trustee must deal with a bankrupt's interest in their home within three years, otherwise the property re-vests in the bankrupt on expiry of this period. It is commonly known at the "use it or lose it" provision.

A recent Hong Kong Court of Appeal decision examined a creditor’s right to commence bankruptcy/insolvency proceedings where the petition debt arises from an agreement containing an exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of a foreign court: Guy Kwok-Hung Lam v Tor Asia Credit Master Fund LP [2022] HKCA 1297.

On 24 February 2022, Russia invaded Ukraine in a major escalation of the conflict between the countries that began in 2014. The invasion by Russia was swiftly followed by international condemnation and a raft of sanctions which imposed financial, trade and other restrictions on Russia.

Historically, the Hong Kong courts have generally recognised foreign insolvency proceedings commenced in the jurisdiction in which the company is incorporated. This may no longer be the case in Hong Kong following the recent decision of Provisional Liquidator of Global Brands Group Holding Ltd v Computershare Hong Kong Trustees Ltd [2022] HKCFI 1789 (Global Brands).

Historically, the common law has only recognised foreign insolvency proceedings commenced in the jurisdiction in which the company is incorporated. This may no longer be the case in Hong Kong. Going forward, a Hong Kong court will now recognise foreign insolvency proceedings in the jurisdiction of the company’s “centre of main interests” (COMI). Indeed, it will not be sufficient, nor will it be necessary, that the foreign insolvency process is conducted in a company’s place of incorporation.

On 6 June 2022, Mr Justice Harris sanctioned a Hong Kong scheme of arrangement for Rare Earth Magnesium Technology Group (the Company) in re Rare Earth Magnesium Technology Limited [2022] HKFCI 1686 (Rare Earth).