Cram-across: Sino-Ocean Restructuring Plan Makes Waves
The evolution of the English RP continues to push the jurisdictional envelope.
Actions brought against the BHS directors by the group’s liquidators have resulted in the largest reported award for wrongful trading since the provision’s introduction, but the judgment highlights some unsettled areas of the law relating to directors’ duties.
The Legal Statement applies areas of insolvency law to digital assets, providing valuable guidance on the approach English courts will take.
The Legal Statement applies areas of insolvency law to digital assets, providing valuable guidance on the approach English courts will take.
The Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Sequana1leaves many unanswered questions, and finding a common thread between the four quite separate judgments has proved challenging for practitioners and directors alike. The recent decision in Hunt v.
A bankruptcy petition should not proceed if the debt is disputed and subject to an exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of a foreign court.
Judicial comments cast doubt on the ability to compromise US law-governed debt effectively based on Chapter 15 recognition alone.
In a new ruling, the UK Supreme Court concluded that the rule applies only when a company is "insolvent or bordering on insolvency".
On 5 October 2022, the UK Supreme Court handed down judgment in BTI 2014 LLC v. Sequana SA and others (Sequana)1. The case required the court to reconcile differing judicial pronouncements of the "creditors' interest rule" (the Rule) and consider the following questions:
Judicial comments cast doubt on the ability to compromise US law-governed debt effectively based on Chapter 15 recognition alone.
The decision raises new questions about whether cross-border insolvency recognition and assistance between mainland China and Hong Kong will be a two-way street.