On 1 November 2023, the new Luxembourg law of 7 August 2023 on the continuation of businesses and the modernisation of insolvency law (the “New Law”) entered into force. The New Law introduces new safeguard mechanisms designed to promote the continuity and preservation of businesses and the jobs that go with it. It provides for a mix of out-of-court and in-court procedures, including the option for a conciliator, the possibility of amicable agreements and judicial reorganisation procedures, and grants unfortunate but bona fide traders a second chance.

On 30 October 2023, the UK government published an update on its legislative approach for regulating fiat-backed stablecoins, following on from its consultation on the UK regulatory approach to cryptoassets and stablecoins in January 2021, and the response to that consultation in April 2022. Alongside this, it published a response to its consultation on the approach to managing the failure of systemic digital settlement asset (DSA) (including stablecoin) firms.

On 25 August 2023, in ECLI:NL:HR:2023:1135, the Supreme Court answered three legal questions relevant to the practice of setoff before and during bankruptcy or a suspension of payments. In this blog, we address the Supreme Court's decisions and consider the implications for legal practice.

The Hong Kong court has granted an order forcing an uncooperative former director of a Hong Kong listed company to ratify the appointment of a Hong Kong liquidator as the sole director of the companies' four BVI subsidiaries. The court rejected the idea that the liquidators should be made to apply for fresh winding up orders in the BVI and stressed that courts should be ready to offer each other mutual assistance.

Industrial and manufacturing businesses face all kinds of challenges: pricing and competitive pressures; regulatory demands; cross-border trade regulations and obligations; and litigation risk stemming from environmental and tort claims. These challenges create risks around every corner, some even rising to the level of "bet-the-company" issues – the things that keep GCs up at night.

The Singapore High Court has again confirmed that a winding-up application concerning a disputed debt that is subject to an arbitration agreement will be dismissed if the arbitration agreement is prima facie valid and covers the dispute. This prima facie standard of review was first formulated three years ago by the Singapore Court of Appeal in AnAn Group (Singapore) Pte Ltd v VTB Bank (Public Joint Stock Company) [2020] SCGA 33.

Three recent Hong Kong first instance court decisions have left undecided the question of whether a winding-up petition will trump an agreement to arbitrate when it comes to a winding-up and particularly in the context of cross-claims. A Court of Final Appeal decision this spring had seemed to provide pointers that the parties' agreement would be upheld but the issue – particularly when it comes to unmeritorious and late arbitration applications – is dividing the courts.

Het faillissement van Heiploeg uit 2014 is een bron van principiële geschillen en procedures. Deze Heiploeg-uitspraak werpt de vraag op onder welke voorwaarden een (door de Europese Commissie) aan Heiploeg opgelegde kartelboete kan worden verhaald op een (in dit geval gewezen) bestuurder. In de literatuur is vanuit meerdere invalshoeken de nodige aandacht besteed aan de mogelijkheid om op grond van het mededingingsrecht een boete op te leggen aan bestuurders en andere feitelijk leidinggevenden.

Aanleiding en inhoud TWTT

Een turboliquidatie is de ontbinding op eigen initiatief van een rechtspersoon, waarbij – als de rechtspersoon op het tijdstip van ontbinding geen baten heeft – het tijdstip van de ontbinding samenvalt met de beëindiging van de rechtspersoon. In dat geval hoeft er dus niet te worden vereffend, want er zijn geen baten om te vereffenen. Let op: het voorgaande geldt dus ook als de rechtspersoon nog wel lasten heeft.

In the case of Re Guangdong Overseas Construction Corporation [2023] HKCFI 1340, the Honourable Madam Justice Linda Chan recognized and provided assistance to a mainland China appointed administrator over a mainland China company in liquidation despite the administrator's application being outside the scope of the insolvency cooperation mechanism between Hong Kong and mainland China courts. The Hong Kong court affirmed that its jurisdiction to recognize and assist office-holders appointed by a court of another jurisdiction derives from common law.