The issue
A "no action" clause will appear in almost all English law-governed bond trust deeds.
A no action clause provides that a bondholder (or anyone entitled to payments on the bonds) cannot, initially, proceed directly against the issuer. Instead, the right to bring a cause of action resides with the trustee and it is only if the trustee, having become bound to take action, fails to do so within a reasonable time (with the failure continuing) that a bondholder can then itself proceed directly against the issuer.
Ozner Water International Holding Limited (In Liquidation) [2022] HKCFI 363 (date of decision: 27 January 2022)
Hong Kong Fresh Water International Group Limited (In Liquidation) [2022] HKCFI 924 (date of decision: 6 April 2022)
Introduction
Financial support for businesses impacted by COVID-19, legislative provisions (such as the statutory relaxation to insolvent trading liability) and general creditor leniency have resulted inhistorically low insolvency appointments during the last two years.
The High Court has handed down the long-awaited decision of Stubbings v Jams 2 Pty Ltd [2022] HCA 6, unanimously overturning the decision of the Victorian Court of Appeal. In so doing, the Court held that enforcement of rights under a personal guarantee was unconscionable.
In Walton v ACN 004 410 833 Limited (formerly Arrium Limited) (in liquidation) [2022] HCA 3, the High Court extended the purpose for which, and incidentally parties by whom, public examinations may be used.
In the latest edition of Going concerns, Stephenson Harwood's restructuring and insolvency team touches on the extent of the automatic stay arising from the recognition of a foreign main proceeding under the Singapore Model Law cross-border recognition regime, the requirements for a pre-pack scheme of arrangement under the recent Singapore Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018, and the importance of Environmental, Social and Governance ("ESG") in the restructuring context.
Contents
For some time, controversy has surrounded the question as to whether unsecured creditors of an insolvent company can utilise set-off under s 553C of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act) against unfair preference claims.
An important decision for employers and administrators has been handed down by the High Court in the case of R (Palmer, Forsey) v Northern Derbyshire Magistrates' Court [2021] EWHC 3013. The Judgment acts as a stark reminder to employers and company personnel about the criminal liability they can face for failing to notify the Secretary of State of proposed collective redundancies as well as confirming that that an administrator can be prosecuted personally.
Background
Public examinations are a powerful process for a liquidator to explore the reasons for a company’s failure, identify any claims the liquidator or the company might have and assess recoverability prospects following any successful claim.
In a similar vein, liquidators might also obtain document production orders against natural persons and corporate entities. Such document production orders are often obtained in advance of examinations, and can assist the liquidator in its investigations and preparation for the examinations.