Liquidator remuneration in insolvency proceedings often raises difficult questions; especially in large corporate collapses where the work is extensive and the stakes are high. Courts must balance fair compensation with creditor protection, but approaches to fee assessment have varied across jurisdictions, leading to uncertainty and dispute.

When a company goes into liquidation, creditors often wonder whether they will recover their debts. One available option to achieve this is funding legal action to help the liquidator recover assets.

Singapore's insolvency legislation allows creditors who fund liquidators' recovery actions to have priority over other creditors in the distribution of recovered assets. This improves the viability of commencing insolvency proceedings as an asset recovery tool.

When a company enters liquidation, the appointed liquidator steps into a pivotal role – one that requires navigating complex challenges to recover assets and maximize returns for creditors. This task entails conducting detailed investigations and pursuing legal actions, processes that demand a careful balance of inquiry, judgment, and responsibility.

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 inter-relationship between disputed debts, arbitration agreements and winding up proceedings has come up again this time before the Privy Council in Sian Participation Corp (In Liquidation) v Halimeda International Ltd [2024] UKPC 16. In delivering this important judgment, the Privy Council looked closely at the dividing line between two areas of public policy, namely insolvency and arbitration.

Background

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.

In this guide, we explain what to do when you no longer need a company that has been incorporated or registered in the British Virgin Islands (Company). Assuming the Company is solvent, you have two options: (1) arrange for the Company to be voluntarily liquidated and dissolved (Liquidated); or (2) leave (or apply for) the Company to be administratively struck-off and dissolved (Administratively Dissolved). For the reasons set out below, we usually recommend a Company is Liquidated, rather than Administratively Dissolved.

Introduction

The first stage in any restructuring by way of a scheme of arrangement in the Cayman Islands involves meetings of such classes of creditors or shareholders (as the case may be) to consider, and if thought fit, approve the terms of the scheme. An application to Court is required for orders to be granted for convening such meetings. If, at these meetings, the requisite statutory majorities are satisfied, the second stage involves obtaining Court sanction for the proposed scheme to become effective.

Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands and the Cayman Islands all have legislation that enables a company to present a scheme of arrangement to restructure its debts.

One of the defining features of a scheme of arrangement carried out under the relevant legislation in each jurisdiction is the ability to cram down dissenting creditors or members (or classes of them, as the case may be) if the requisite statutory majorities are satisfied and Court sanction of the proposed scheme is obtained.

One of the primary goals of bankruptcy law is to provide debtors with a fresh start by imposing an automatic stay and allowing for claims of reorganizing debtors to be discharged. In environmental law, a primary goal is to ensure that the “polluter pays” for environmental harms. These two goals collide when an entity with environmental liabilities enters bankruptcy. The result is often outcomes that are the exception, rather than the rule, with many unsettled areas of law that can be dealt with by bankruptcy courts in varying ways.