The appointment of joint liquidators can be a useful tool in cross-border insolvency proceedings, particularly when assets are located in a number of jurisdictions. However, courts must ensure that a joint liquidator appointment does not lead to conflicting duties based on the respective laws in each jurisdiction. This was the main issue for consideration in West Bromwich Commercial Ltd v Hatfield Property Ltd, where Jack J was satisfied that the appointment of joint liquidators was necessary.
A recent decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council reaffirms its position that only in rare cases will it be appropriate to interfere with concurrent findings of fact of two lower tribunals.1 The Privy Council found Byers and others v Chen Ningning to be one such case on the basis that an error in findings of fact as to the Respondent’s status as a director had been made by the first instance trial judge and upheld by the Court of Appeal.
Introduction
The Covid-19 pandemic has had a severe impact on the economy. This has given rise to an increasing number of claimants with claims against insolvent businesses.
In these circumstances, a third-party claimant would usually notify the company’s insolvency practitioner of its claim. The claimant is then required to pursue its recovery as part of the insolvency process alongside other creditors.
The Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010 (the 2010 Act)1
A recent decision of the Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal has confirmed that, whilst the courts of the British Virgin Islands (BVI) will recognise the appointment of foreign representatives (including liquidators and trustees in bankruptcy) as having status in the BVI in accordance with his or her appointment by a foreign court, they may only provide assistance to representatives from certain designated countries.
The UK’s new “restructuring plan” was enacted in June 2020.1 This highly-anticipated regime introduced (for the first time into English law) a tongue twisting “cross-class cram down” (CCCD) mechanism by which a restructuring plan can (at the court’s discretion) be imposed on an entire class of dissenting creditors or members.
Until recently, only two companies had successfully used the restructuring plan regime.2 In both instances, CCCD was not considered as the required voting thresholds (i.e. 75%) were met.
What a creditor needs to know about liquidating GUIDE an insolvent Cayman company
Last reviewed: December 2020
Contents
Introduct ion When is a company insolvent? What is a statutory demand?
New legislation has been introduced in the UK which restricts the rights of parties to construction contracts to terminate or even suspend work. This means that even if your contract says you can terminate or suspend – for example, for non-payment – you may not in the future be able to exercise this right. These reforms are likely to lead to significant changes to how parties operate their contracts and credit lines.
The highly anticipated Insolvency and Corporate Governance Bill (the "Bill") was finally published on 20 May 2020. Following its second and third readings in the House of Commons yesterday (3 June 2020), the Bill will now be considered by the House of Lords in the coming days.
As reported last month, as part of its response to the Covid-19 pandemic, the UK Government has brought forward reforms to the corporate insolvency regime. The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill (the "Bill") has now been introduced to Parliament.
In the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic and the far reaching and drastic measures implemented in numerous countries around the world, we are receiving an increasing number of insolvency and restructuring enquiries from our clients.