The recent judgment of Mrs Justice Proudman in Plaza BV –v- The Law Debenture Trust Corporation¹  illustrates and extends a line of authorities in which the English courts have sought to narrow the scope of the mandatory application of Article 2 of the Brussels Regulation 44/2001.  These cases are a reaction to the broad interpretation of the applicability and effect of Article 2 set out in the ECJ's decision in Owusu –v- Jackson² , and attempt to confine the influence of that decision. 

The published judgment in Abbey Forwarding[1] will not make for comfortable reading for HMRC. Having instigated the winding up of a profitable business, which led to the dismissal of 23 employees, and accused  innocent directors of fraud, HMRC then withdrew all assessments made against the company and attempted to avoid undertakings it had given to the court when seeking the original winding up order.

Introduction

In the recent case of Re LDK Solar Co Ltd,⁽¹⁾Justice Lam considered the approach that the court should take in deciding whether to invoke its jurisdiction to approve an arrangement or compromise between a foreign company and its creditors or members.

While most jurisdictions provide liquidators with wide investigative powers to locate and realise assets locally, the exercise of such powers becomes more complicated when the assets are situated overseas. As more and more businesses expand globally and corporate structures become equally more complex, the liquidators’ task becomes more problematic in winding up such companies.

Effective March 23, 2015, the Ohio Revised Code will contain robust provisions for the court appointment of a receiver, which will expand the statutory grounds for such appointments and expressly authorize enumerated powers for receivers designed to facilitate the receiver’s ability to liquidate assets. In many respects the revised statute codifies a number of existing practices.

Introduction

While most jurisdictions provide liquidators with wide investigative powers to locate and realise assets locally, the exercise of such powers becomes more complicated when the assets are situated overseas. As more and more businesses expand globally and corporate structures become equally more complex, the liquidators' task becomes more problematic in winding up such companies.

It long has been the law that unpaid creditors of an insolvent debtor can complain if the debtor sells or otherwise transfers any of its assets for less than their fair value. Assume, for example, a company in financial distress sells one of its manufacturing plants to an unrelated purchaser for $15 million. If an unpaid creditor of the seller can demonstrate the fair value of the facility at the time of the sale was $20 million, the purchaser may be required to account to the seller, or its creditors, for the $5 million difference.

Hong Kong Court records available publicly today show that a Petition was presented last Friday to wind up O.W. Bunker China Ltd (a Hong Kong company).  The records indicate that the Winding-up Petition was presented by the company itself rather than a creditor.  This is consistent with the steps taken by other companies within the OW Bunker group to seek Court protection.

We are receiving numerous enquiries regarding the fallout from the bankruptcy of OW Bunker A/S and certain associated companies.  At this stage, some companies are in formal bankruptcy proceedings, with the Court protection that usually entails, but others are not. 

In June 2013 the Complaints Gateway was established to provide a single entry point for regulatory complaints against insolvency practitioners.  The Insolvency Service has published an analysis of the complaints received by the Complaints Gateway in its first 12 months; the headline being an increase in complaints being made against insolvency practitioners from 748 to 941 complaints.