ASTRA RESOURCES PLC V CREDIT VERITAS USA LLC [2015] EWHC 1830 (CH)

It is trite law that the court will grant an injunction restraining the advertisement of a winding-up petition where the petition amounts to an abuse of process.

E: BW ESTATES LTD; RANDHAWA AND ANOTHER V TURPIN AND ANOTHER [2015] EWHC 517 (CH) (“RVT”)

This decision followed an application by creditors (“the Randhawas”) of BW Estates Ltd (“the Company”) against the administrators of the Company that their remuneration should be deemed excessive and either disallowed entirely or reduced to such extent as the court thought appropriate.

The Facts

The South East’s position as one of the more prosperous areas of the UK, in terms of both lifestyle and work looks set to continue, as demonstrated by the findings of Lambert Smith Hampton’s UK Vitality Index Report 2015 in which Guildford came out as the top destination in the UK, with other cities in the region dominating the list.

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.

TECHNICAL UPDATE - APRIL 2015

The Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 (“the Act”), which received Royal Assent on 26 March 2015, contains a number of changes and additions to the Insolvency Act 1986 (“IA 1986”). 

A summary of the changes, as they relate to insolvency proceedings, are highlighted below but for full details as to the newest additions to the IA 1986, please see s117 to s146 of the Act which can be located at:

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.

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

On 9 July 2013, the European Commission adopted a proposal for a new Directive on package travel and assisted travel arrangements to replace the Package Travel Directive¹ (the Directive) which has been long thought to have become outdated in the face of the growth of the internet and the “dynamic packaging” industry. Following extensive consultation with industry representatives and trade bodies, an amended version of the Commission’s proposal was adopted by the European Parliament on 12 March 2014 (the Proposed Directive).