As practitioners we pour over notices of intention to appoint (NOIA) and notices of appointment of administrators (NOA) to make sure every detail is accurate. Why? Because no one wants to risk an invalid appointment because there was a minor mistake or error that was overlooked. Understandably errors occur, particularly when the appointment of administrators often happens at speed, with all parties inevitably juggling many balls. Prescribed information may have been missed, or incorrectly stated and procedural steps may have been inadvertently forgotten.

Hong Kong is a common law jurisdiction, and its legal system is based on English law. Following Hong Kong’s handover to China on 1 July 1997, the Basic Law of Hong Kong is the constitutional document of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Article 8 of the Basic Law provides that: “laws previously in force in Hong Kong, that is, the common law, rules of equity, ordinances, subordinate legislation and customary law shall be maintained, except for any that contravene [the Basic Law], and subject to any amendment by the legislature of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.”

The bankruptcy court presiding over the FTX Trading bankruptcy last month issued a memorandum opinion addressing valuation of cryptocurrency-based claims and how to “calculate a reasonable discount to be applied to the Petition Date market price” for certain cryptocurrency tokens.

For those that are that way inclined (which includes us at #SPBRestructuring!), the 500 plus page Wright v Chappell judgment which sets out the BHS wrongful trading claim against its former directors makes for an interesting read. It paints a colourful picture of the downfall of the BHS group, from the point that it was sold for £1 to its eventual demise into administration and then liquidation. You can make your own mind up about the characters involved, but the story is a sorry one, with creditors ultimately suffering the most.

Buying parts of a distressed company may offer great opportunities for buyers. When a company is struggling but not yet insolvent, external financing might dry up and the sale of non-core activities may be a last resort to generate fresh cash.

The Privy Council has recently delivered a landmark judgment on the interplay between arbitration agreements and winding up petitions. The Board held that the English case of Salford Estates (No 2) Ltd v Altomart Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 1575; Ch 589, which had adopted a pro-arbitration approach to stay or dismiss winding up petitions based on debts covered by arbitration agreements, even if the debts were not genuinely disputed on substantial grounds was wrongly decided.

The Abu Dhabi Global Market (the “ADGM”) courts have recently handed down their decision in NMC Healthcare Limited & Others v Shetty & Others ([2024] ADGMCFI 0007). The decision deals with several important principles in relation to fraudulent/wrongful trading liabilities under ADGM law. Given the ADGM re-domiciliation (or continuation) regime, enabling companies incorporated elsewhere to be redomiciled to ADGM with relative ease, the decision is likely to be of interest beyond the borders of the ADGM.

File your proof of claim before the bar date. That’s a principle every creditor in a bankruptcy case should adhere by. But on June 7, 2024, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York may have increased the degree of diligence parties need to conduct to determine whether they are a potential creditor in a case and therefore required to file a proof of claim.

In the recent decision Sian Participation v Halimeda (Sian), the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (the Privy Council) held on a BVI appeal that a winding-up petition should not be stayed or dismissed merely because the underlying debt is subject to a generally-worded arbitration agreement.

In the most significant decision of the decade on a matter of U.S. bankruptcy law, the U.S. Supreme Court rendered its highly anticipated decision in Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P., 603 U.S. ____ (2024) on June 27, 2024, striking down the non-consensual third party releases that were the cornerstone of Purdue Pharma's Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization by a vote of 5-4. In doing so, the Court said: