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.”

Asset freeze measures enacted by the United Kingdom against designated persons (DPs) can, under certain circumstances, extend to entities “owned or controlled” by DPs. To date, there have been few—and at times partly contradictory—English court cases addressing the “ownership and control” criteria under the UK sanctions regime. The latest judgment in Hellard v OJSC Rossiysky Kredit Bank sought to reconcile the previous guidance provided by the courts in the Mints and Litasco cases.

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.

Liability management transactions which may favour a subset of creditors over another are increasingly common in the US leveraged finance markets. 2024 may be seen as the year in which these US imports began to make a real impact in Europe. Which strategies could creditors employ to protect themselves from unfavourable treatment where such transactions are attempted?

The US Supreme Court ruled in a landmark 5-4 decision on June 27, 2024 that nonconsensual third-party releases, as proposed in Purdue Pharma’s bankruptcy plan, were not permissible under the Bankruptcy Code. A nonconsensual third-party release serves to eliminate the direct claims of third parties against nondebtor parties without soliciting the consent of such affected claimants. This contrasts with consensual releases and opt-in or opt-out mechanisms permitted by courts.

The securitization or structured finance market has evolved from its early origins focused primarily on financial assets (e.g., mortgages, receivables, loans credit card accounts, etc.) to the world of non-traditional or esoteric securitizations with exciting new assets.

Following an overhaul of the Singapore insolvency regime which came into force on 30 July 2020, the insolvency and restructuring framework was consolidated in the omnibus Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 (IRDA). One of the key features of the IRDA was to amend the then-existing construct of statutory avoidance actions in Singapore.

Overview of statutory avoidance provisions following IRDA

The US appears likely to enter a default cycle in the near future, according to senior fund managers and economists. A recent bout of M&A transactions involving chapter 11 cases point in the same direction. Taking deals involving bankruptcy cases as a proxy for distressed M&A, 16 such transactions were announced in the US in Q1, up 14.3 percent year on year, according to Dealogic. The aggregate value of those deals reached US$1.8 billion, a gain of 76 percent from the same period in 2023.

Digital assets may be new, but existing English insolvency laws and principles can deal with them. So finds the UK Jurisdiction Taskforce (UKJT) in its ‘Legal Statement on Digital Assets and English Insolvency Law’, published this week.

Key takeaways include:

In Foo Kian Beng v OP3 International Pte Ltd (in liquidation) [2024] SGCA 10 (OP3 International)¹ the Singapore Court of Appeal considered the trigger for when the director's duty to consider the interests of creditors is engaged (referred to in the judgment as the Creditor Duty).

The Court held that: