Hanjin Shipping's financial collapse has been well publicised. As a consequence of its collapse one can anticipate that there will be displaced containers worldwide with Hanjin vessels being arrested short of or at destination, being moored up or remaining outside port limits to avoid arrest or being stuck at a port short of destination with the port authority unwilling to provide port services absent payment in advance. One press report we have seen suggests that in excess of 500,000 TEUs already loaded on Hanjin vessels may be subject to delay.

As you may be aware, one of South Korea's largest shipowners, Hanjin Shipping Co Ltd (“Hanjin”), has applied for court rehabilitation in Korea. On 1 September 2016 the Seoul Central District Court (Bankruptcy Division 6) issued a decision accepting that application and commencing rehabilitation proceedings.

Based on our experience in dealing with recent rehabilitations involving the Korean shipping industry and working closely with Korean lawyers, we set out below a few guidance points.

What is a Korean Court Rehabilitation?

For companies with an appetite for strategic business growth rather than divestment, buying assets from insolvent companies is a particular avenue of opportunity. For example, in the current market, there may be opportunities to purchase oil & gas assets from companies that have not been able to survive the prolonged low oil price. Corporate Partner, Philip Mace, provides his top 'legal tips' for purchasing assets from, in this example, an English administrator of a company.

This is a follow-up to our previous client update on Swiber Holdings Limited written on 29 July 2016. To view our previous update, please click here.

Counterparties of Swiber Holdings Limited ("Swiber") and its group companies would do well to keep a close tab on any debts outstanding from the group.

Swiber, an SGX-listed company in the oil fields services sector, issued an announcement in the early hours of Thursday 28 July 2016 stating that it filed an application in the Singapore High Court for a voluntary winding up on Wednesday afternoon, together with an application to place the company under provisional liquidation.

The collapse of marine fuel trader OW Bunker & Trading A/S (“OW Bunker”) and its affiliates, in November 2014, has resulted in a blizzard of legal proceedings in the United States. Bunker suppliers and creditors of insolvent OW Bunker entities have sought to secure their claims by arresting vessels or proceeding directly against vessel owners and operators who contracted with OW Bunker entities to supply their vessels with bunkers.

The Court of Appeal’s decision in the case of Heis v MF Global highlights the importance of documenting just who has responsibility for contributing to a defined benefit pension scheme.

EIS AND OTHERS V MF GLOBAL UK SERVICES LTD (IN ADMINISTRATION) [2016] EWCA CIV 569, [2016] ALL ER (D) 125 (JUN)

In Berryman v Zurich Australia Ltd [2016] WASC 196 it was decided that a bankrupt's entitlement to claim a TPD benefit under a life insurance policy is not an entitlement that is divisible amongst the bankrupt's creditors, and therefore such an entitlement does not vest in the Official Trustee in bankruptcy. Tottle J of the Supreme Court of Western Australia ruled that the bankrupt insured could continue an action in his own name to recover the TPD benefit. Life insurers may need to adjust their claims' payment practices in light of the Berryman decision.

The true effects of the events of the last few days have yet to be seen. With the mainstream political parties acting like participants in a ‘Compose a Greek Tragedy’ competition, a government unlikely to exercise any meaningful executive functions until autumn (at least), the currency and financial markets in turmoil and the future uncertain on a range of factors, it is tempting to succumb to a condition of inaction whilst waiting to see how the cards fall.

First published in the International Arbitration 1/3LY, Issue 7

Insolvency law contains summary processes for dealing with claims and protections against certain proceedings commencing or continuing. There has been some debate, and recent case law, concerning the primacy of these rules over agreements to arbitrate. In the following article, we look at what the current position is under English law and beyond.

General position under English law