On September 1, 2016, a rehabilitation procedure was commenced in the Seoul Central District Court in respect of Hanjin Shipping Co., Ltd (Hanjin). This action followed many months of discussions between Hanjin and its creditors (both local and international) designed to reach a consensual restructuring, as a result of which various creditors had voluntarily agreed to postpone exercising claims. Such agreement was eventually suspended on August 30, 2016 following notice to Hanjin that such creditors were unable to continue their support.

Background

Earlier this year the Committee to Strengthen Singapore as an International Centre for Debt Restructuring (the "Committee") published, and the Singapore Ministry of Law accepted, recommendations aimed at enhancing Singapore's position as a `lead centre' for international debt restructuring. Is Singapore now well-positioned to become Asia Pacific's debt restructuring hub?

Background

Introduction

On 25 July 2016, the White & Case team obtained, at the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation (the "Supreme Court"), a declaration that a secured creditor has the right to reduce, at its discretion, the amount of a secured claim during receivership and, as a consequence, the right to vote at meetings of the debtor's creditors.

On 25 July 2016, Insurance Ireland published a statement opposing the Department of Finance's recent recommendation that liabilities of any insolvent motor insurer should be assumed by the Insurance Compensation Fund. Insurance Ireland states this would and pose a systemic risk to the Irish motor insurance market.

The Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement (ODCE) has published its Annual Report for 2015.

Key Developments from the Report: 

This case¹ concerned a challenge to a High Court judgment which was entered against Mr Hanley for failure to repay monies borrowed pursuant to a loan agreement. Mr Hanley asserted that he had never received a letter of demand for repayment of the loan monies borrowed. The Court noted that the notice of demand went, in error, to another Mr Hanley that had no connection to the Defendant.

In Leahy v Doyle & anor [2016] IEHC 177, the High Court issued orders of restriction in respect of directors of two companies (Gingersnap and Scappa), under Section 150 of the Companies Act 1990 (now Section 819 of the Companies Act 2014). While the companies were different, the liquidator and the directors were the same.

Background 

On 3 June 2016, the Hong Kong Government gazetted the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) Ordinance 2016 (“Amendment Ordinance”). The date of commencement of the Amendment Ordinance will be appointed by the Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury by notice published in the Gazette.

Background

In McAteer & anor v McBrien & ors [2016] IEHC 229, the High Court made an order restricting three directors pursuant to Section 150 of the Companies Act 1990 (now Section 819 of the Companies Act 2014).  The first named respondent (A) was the husband of the second named respondent (B) and father of the third named respondent (C) and all were directors of the Company on the date of the liquidation.

Background

The High Court (Binchy J), has recently made restriction orders in respect of directors in two separate applications before it.