Two recent judgments from different Australian courts have considered circumstances in which insolvency disputes can (or cannot) be arbitrated in accordance with pre-existing arbitration agreements. In particular, the decisions address the following two key issues:

• when certain insolvency claims can be arbitrated; and
• when a third party can participate in arbitral proceedings either claiming or defending ‘through or under’ a party to the arbitration agreement.

Key takeaways

On 21 April 2023, the Hong Kong Court of Appeal (CA) released its judgment Power Securities Co Ltd v Sin Kwok Lam [2023] HKCA 594, which provided certainty on the application of the bar against reflective loss for shareholders.

Background

If a debt arises from a contract that contains an exclusive jurisdiction clause (EJC) in favour of a foreign court, how will the Hong Kong court deal with a bankruptcy petition based on that debt? A highly anticipated judgment from Hong Kong’s highest court suggests that the bankruptcy petition will likely be dismissed, and that the foreign EJC will be given effect. But, as we will discuss below, the Court seems to leave other possibilities open, depending on the facts in a particular case.

With the passage of several years since the outbreak of COVID-19 and additional external factors such as the soaring prices of various goods and services and the sharp depreciation of the Japanese yen, companies' financial conditions have deteriorated, while others are considering filing for restructuring proceedings, which is why the reduction of excessive debt has become a major issue as of late.

In the much-anticipated decision of Bryant v Badenoch Integrated Logging Pty Ltd [2023] HCA 2 (Badenoch (HCA)), the High Court of Australia (the HCA) has now confirmed that the peak indebtedness rule may not be used when assessing the quantum of an unfair preference claim arising from a continuing business relationship.

The Federal Court of Australia (Court) has handed down the first reported decision on the ipso facto stay provisions contained in the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act).

Although not directly concerned with directors' liabilities, the recent Supreme Court judgment in Stanford International Bank Ltd v HSBC Bank PLC provides further clarity on the circumstances in which a distressed or insolvent company may seek to make claims against its directors.

INTRODUCTION

The key aspects affecting directors' liabilities presented in the Supreme Court ruling are that:

In an increasing number of restructuring cases of globally-operating companies, companies or funds outside Japan are becoming strong sponsor candidates, and even more foreign players are expected to be actively selected as sponsor candidates in the future.

In this article, we focus on the sponsor selection process in out-of-court restructurings and legal insolvency procedures in Japan, based on recent actual cases.

FTX Trading Ltd. ("FTX") and its affiliates (collectively, "FTX Group"), which operated one of the largest crypto-asset exchanges in the world through the FTX.com platform, filed for Chapter 11 in the United States on November 11 last year.

The high-profile Chapter 11 case of the FTX Trading group involves its Japanese affiliates including FTX Japan, which operated a registered cryptocurrency exchange in Japan and has been ordered by the Financial Services Agency of Japan to suspend its business upon the filing for Chapter 11. Recently, a motion was made for entry of orders approving, among other things, the group to sell FTX Japan's business through so-called “363 sale”.