The long-running saga between Shandong Chenming Paper Holdings (“Shandong Chenming“) and Arjowiggins HKK2 Ltd (“Arjowiggins“) has continued with the Court of Appeal handing down its judgment on an appeal against a lower court judgment which had dismissed Shandong Chenming’s application to injunct Arjowiggins from presenting a winding-up petition against Shandong Chenming (Shandong Chenming Paper Holdings Limited v. Arjowiggins HKK2 Limited [2020] HKCA 670).

The High Court has expedited a trial at which it would be determined whether luxury car manufacturer McLaren Group could obtain the release of certain security for the benefit of its senior noteholders, failing which a financial restructuring which was contingent on that release could not be implemented: McLaren Holdings Ltd v US Bank Trustees Ltd [2020] EWHC 1892 (Ch). The court concluded that, absent determination of the proceedings within one month, McLaren Group would have no choice but to enter an insolvency process and that this justified expedition in this case.

CIGA 2020 which received the Royal Assent on 25 June 2020 has introduced several significant changes to UK insolvency legislation. Some of these are temporary measures enacted in response to the Coronavirus pandemic to mitigate the effects of the lockdown. Others, however, are permanent measures that result from a consultation process to amend the Insolvency Act 1986 begun in 2016 and concluded in 2018.

Singapore’s Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act (the “IRDA“), together with 48 pieces of subsidiary legislation, comes into force today, 30 July 2020 (available here).

In this case the court considered a debtor’s application to set aside a bankruptcy order made in her absence (due to self-isolation in accordance with Covid-19 guidelines). It was held that the fact that the debtor was bankrupt meant she had no standing to apply to set the order aside. The court accepted that the debtor had a good reason not to attend court, and had acted promptly to set the order aside, however legal precedent going back to the 1990’s meant that only a trustee in bankruptcy could challenge the liability orders. 

This case was heard before CIGA came into force but the provisions of the CIG Bill were known. Statutory demands were served on 27 March 2020 on the company in respect of debts due under loan agreements and a winding up petition had been presented. The company applied for an injunction to restrain the advertisement of the petition, claiming that although it was insolvent it had been prevented from obtaining funding, to enable it to propose a scheme of arrangement to its unsecured creditors, as a result of the pandemic.

The joint liquidators of a company, which had been compulsorily wound up in England and Wales, sought orders under section 236 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (“IA86”) for production of documents and an account of dealings with the company, in respect of companies in Italy. The question for the Court was whether s236 IA86 had extraterritorial effect. The problem for the court was that there was competing first instance decisions both for and against.

A bankruptcy petition was dismissed on the application of the debtor, who claimed that a guarantee document was not a valid deed, the transaction which was purported to be guaranteed was a sham and that the debtor’s signature had been forged. Whilst the court accepted that there was a substantial dispute as regards the transaction (payment of fees of US$500 billion!) and that the form of guarantee was invalid, as no evidence had been called to show that the debtor’s signature had been forged, the bankruptcy petition hearing was not the right forum to decide the matter.

The long running question of whether a contractual dispute relating to a breach of a construction contract can be the subject of Adjudication, if one of the parties is in Liquidation, and there are cross claims for insolvency set off was settled by The Supreme Court. Needless to say the two parties both claimed breach of contract and damages. The contract allowed for a dispute to be resolved by Arbitration which the sub-contractor Bresco wished to pursue. This was opposed on the basis of incompatibility between insolvency set-off, and an argument that the adjudicator lacked jurisdiction.

In this case the court was asked to allow the convening of a meeting of creditors to consider and approve a scheme of arrangement by telephone and video conference in view of the Covid-19 pandemic. The meeting was proposed to take place on 20 July 2020 when there was likely to be an easing of the lockdown measure. The court approved the application and made the necessary order.

A similar order was made in a more recent case: Re ColourOz Investment 2 LLC and other companies.