In welcome news for insolvency practitioners, the Supreme Court has limited the circumstances in which a dissatisfied bankrupt will have standing to challenge a trustee in bankruptcy's decisions or actions under section 303(1) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (Act), to those where there is likely to be a surplus in the bankruptcy estate (subject to only very limited exceptions). The Supreme Court acknowledged that, while this decision is about bankruptcy, the reasoning will also apply to challenges to liquidators' decisions under section 168(5) of the Act.

In a significant order passed on June 28, 2023, in the case of Ronak Industries vs.

In Re Guy Lam Kwok Hung [2023] HKCFA 9, the Court of Final Appeal clarified when a debtor can resist a bankruptcy petition based on an exclusive jurisdiction clause (EJC) in his contract with the petitioner creditor. It is important to appreciate the Court’s reasoning and how it can be applied to various factual scenarios.

In its recent judgment in State Bank of India vs Moser Baer Karamchari Union[1], the Apex court has reiterated the settled legal position of law pertaining to treatment of Employees’ provident fund, pension fund and gratuity Fund (“EPF Dues”) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”).

The characterisation of a charge as fixed or floating can have significant ramifications for the chargee on chargor’s insolvency. This is because the holder of a fixed charge enjoys significant advantage, in terms of the order of priority of distributions to creditors, over a floating charge holder.

The English Court has refused to sanction two separate restructuring plans proposed by Nasmyth Group Limited (Nasmyth) and The Great Annual Savings Company Ltd (GAS). Both companies sought to use Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006 to “cram down” His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC). Whilst neither decision is the first time that Part 26A has been used in this way¹, they are the first to involve any active participation by HMRC in the sanction hearing².

Recently, the Supreme Court, in the case of Gaurav Agarwal vs CA Devang P. Sampat, has issued notice to the parties for adjudicating the crucial question of law pertaining to the ‘Period of Limitation’ for preferring an appeal under Section 61 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“theCode”).

Globalisation means that the effects of a business entering insolvency proceedings rarely stay within the territorial confines of a single jurisdiction; one need only look to the recent cryptocurrency bankruptcies as evidence of this. Cross-border insolvencies are no longer the preserve of large multinational corporation failures. Globalisation and the advent of digitisation mean that even small enterprises have customers, assets, and suppliers in multiple countries. This is particularly so across Asia.

Key takeaways

In BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA and others,¹ the UK Supreme Court considered for the first time the existence, content and triggers of the obligation on directors to have regard to the interests of creditors when a company becomes insolvent or is bordering on insolvency (the Creditor Duty).

This decision addresses important issues for directors, stakeholders, and advisors of UK companies.

Background

On July 12, 2022, the Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court”) passed a judgment in Vidarbha Industries Power Limited v. Axis Bank Limited[1] (“Vidarbha”), which considered the question whether Section 7(5)(a) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”), is mandatory or discretionary in nature.