In general terms, section 110 of the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 (the 2015 Act) amends the provisions of the Company Director Disqualification Act 1986 (the CDDA 1986) in relation to directors’ disqualification.

One of the changes introduced is that the Secretary of State will be able to apply to the court for a compensation order against a director who has been disqualified where creditors have suffered identifiable losses from the director’s misconduct¹.

In a case of first impression in Texas, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas held that the former majority member of a chapter 11 LLC debtor had to relinquish control of the LLC's Facebook page and Twitter account because they were property of the LLC's bankruptcy estate. In re CTLI, LLC, Case No. 14-33564, 2015 WL 1588085 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. April 3, 2015). CTLI, LLC was a Texas gun store and shooting range doing business as Tactical Firearms.

Under the Bankruptcy Code, a debtor in possession operates its business “as usual” during the pendency of a case. Likewise, in most cases, prepetition corporate governance practices and procedures should continue post-petition. In fact, as Judge Sontchi recently held in In re SS Body Armor I, Inc., Case No. 10-1125(CSS) (Bankr. D. Del. April 1, 2015), the right of a shareholder to compel a shareholders’ meeting for the purpose of electing a new board of directors continues during bankruptcy.  Absent “clear abuse,” the automatic stay of 11 U.S.C.

In an effort to protect the property of a bankruptcy estate, Section 362(a) of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code imposes an automatic stay on most proceedings against a debtor in bankruptcy. The policy of this section is to grant relief to a debtor from creditors, and to prevent a "disorganized" dissipation of the debtor's assets. (See, e.g., U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission v. Brennan, 230 F.3d 65, 70 (2d Cir. 2000).) However, the scope of the automatic stay is not all-encompassing.

A recent Western Australian decision has provided guidance on the limits of an insolvent contractor’s ability to enforce an adjudication determination where the principal has an offsetting claim.

4 February 2015 saw Copenship A/S, a significant charterer of bulk vessels, and its subsidiary Copenship Bunkers A/S, file for bankruptcy in the Copenhagen Maritime and Commercial Court.

The bankruptcy of Copenship marks the latest in a series of recent high-profile shipping insolvencies, and with no significant improvement to the bulk market in sight there may well be more to come.

In Harrington v. Simmons (In re Simmons), 513 B.R. 161 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2014), the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Massachusetts considered the U.S. trustee's request that a Chapter 7 debtor be denied a discharge for his failure to maintain adequate financial records or satisfactorily explain the loss of his assets.

When a company is being wound up in a given jurisdiction, can an anti-suit injunction be sought against relevant creditors or members to prevent them from pursuing proceedings in another jurisdiction with a view to securing priority in the liquidation?

This was the issue for the Privy Council to decide in Stichting Shell Pensioenfonds v Krys and another (British Virgin Islands) (26 November 2014), in what is an interesting instance of the application of anti-suit injunctions within the insolvency framework.

Facts

As the bankruptcy of OW Bunker has shown, insolvency in a shipping context can cause significant, far reaching and immediate legal uncertainty. The interaction of insolvency procedures, jurisdictional issues, and the complex web of contractual relationships involved in shipping insolvencies creates unique practical and legal challenges. In this Briefing, we consider from a Hong Kong perspective some of the practical issues that commonly arise.

Insolvency in the Hong Kong Courts

The "American rule" is a well-defined legal principle applied by courts throughout the United States that holds each party to a dispute responsible for paying its own attorney fees. This principle is, however, subject to a number of exceptions that effectively allow a prevailing party to recover its own attorney fees from a losing party. For example, federal and state statutes increasingly authorize a prevailing party to recover costs from its adversary in certain types of actions.