Liquidator remuneration in insolvency proceedings often raises difficult questions; especially in large corporate collapses where the work is extensive and the stakes are high. Courts must balance fair compensation with creditor protection, but approaches to fee assessment have varied across jurisdictions, leading to uncertainty and dispute.
When a company goes into liquidation, creditors often wonder whether they will recover their debts. One available option to achieve this is funding legal action to help the liquidator recover assets.
Singapore's insolvency legislation allows creditors who fund liquidators' recovery actions to have priority over other creditors in the distribution of recovered assets. This improves the viability of commencing insolvency proceedings as an asset recovery tool.
When a company enters liquidation, the appointed liquidator steps into a pivotal role – one that requires navigating complex challenges to recover assets and maximize returns for creditors. This task entails conducting detailed investigations and pursuing legal actions, processes that demand a careful balance of inquiry, judgment, and responsibility.
The inter-relationship between disputed debts, arbitration agreements and winding up proceedings has come up again this time before the Privy Council in Sian Participation Corp (In Liquidation) v Halimeda International Ltd [2024] UKPC 16. In delivering this important judgment, the Privy Council looked closely at the dividing line between two areas of public policy, namely insolvency and arbitration.
Background
Welcome to the 2024 edition of "From Red to Black", our annual review of significant developments and topical issues in the Australian restructuring and insolvency market.
Regulator intervention and government stimulus packages in response to market shocks often mask underlying systemic distress and disrupt economic cycles. With companies now largely weaned off COVID-19 support packages, insolvencies have significantly increased.
By following certain steps and focusing on relevant courses of action, directors of startups can leverage the Safe Harbour provisions to increase their chances of navigating financial difficulties and achieving a better outcome for their company.
The Alita matter serves as a good illustration that if you intend to seek leave under section 444GA(1)(b) you should act swiftly and with regard to the potential regulatory risk.
With the mass of reports, reviews and consultations that have already occurred, there is no lack of critiques, complaints and proposed solutions. The risk is that these will (once again) be cherrypicked for fixes, rather than form the basis for a comprehensive review.
It has been 33 years since the "recession we had to have" in 1991. Fears that Australia would enter a technical recession during 2023 didn’t eventuate.
In this guide, we explain what to do when you no longer need a company that has been incorporated or registered in the British Virgin Islands (Company). Assuming the Company is solvent, you have two options: (1) arrange for the Company to be voluntarily liquidated and dissolved (Liquidated); or (2) leave (or apply for) the Company to be administratively struck-off and dissolved (Administratively Dissolved). For the reasons set out below, we usually recommend a Company is Liquidated, rather than Administratively Dissolved.
Despites its recent failure in case against an administrator in a phoenixing case, ASIC could snatch long-term victory from the jaws of defeat with clear regulatory guidance for insolvency practitioners.