Abhishek Tripathi and Mani Gupta, Sarthak Advocates & Solicitors
This is an extract from the 2022 edition of GRR's the Asia-Pacific Restructuring Review. The whole publication is available here.
In summary
Heidi Chui, Stevenson, Wong & Co
This is an extract from the 2022 edition of GRR's the Asia-Pacific Restructuring Review. The whole publication is available here.
In summary
Hajime Ueno, Masaru Shibahara and Hiroki Nakamura, Nishimura & Asahi
This is an extract from the 2022 edition of GRR's the Asia-Pacific Restructuring Review. The whole publication is available here.
In summary
Rabindra S Nathan, Shearn Delamore & Co
This is an extract from the 2022 edition of GRR's the Asia-Pacific Restructuring Review. The whole publication is available here.
In summary
Swee Siang Boey, Vani Nair, Selina Toh and Suchitra Kumar, RPC Premier Law
This is an extract from the 2022 edition of GRR's the Asia-Pacific Restructuring Review. The whole publication is available here.
In summary
Nuo Ji, Lingqi Wang, Jessica Li and Sylvia Zhang, Fangda Partners
This is an extract from the 2022 edition of GRR's the Asia-Pacific Restructuring Review. The whole publication is available here.
In summary
A recent decision of the Cayman Islands Court of Appeal has confirmed its jurisdiction to hear an appeal of a decision of the Grand Court made pursuant to section 152(1) of the Companies Act (2021) Revision to dissolve a Company following its official liquidation.
Background
The interplay between arbitration and insolvency proceedings has been a recurring theme across common law jurisdictions in recent months. It is therefore timely to consider the conflict between parties' contractual rights to arbitrate and their statutory rights to present a winding up petition and how a balance can be struck when determining which should prevail.
Introduction
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