In a significant judgment dated 9 June 2020 titled ‘Indus Biotech Private Limited v.

Although the challenges brought by the COVID-19 pandemic have, and continue to, put exceptional pressure on supply chains, the reality is that the insolvency of a business partner is a risk even in normal times. When that business partner is on the other side of pending arbitration proceedings, questions arise as to how the insolvency affects the substantive claim as well as the underlying procedure.

Welcome to the inaugural edition of our new newsletter, which is intended to capture the key developments in the English disputes arena over the past three months. We hope that you will find it an interesting read, whether you are a litigator, either in private practice or in-house, or a generalist wanting to keep abreast of the goings on in this space. We also hope that you will pass it on to any of your colleagues who may find it useful.

More than a third of the world’s population is under lockdown to slow the spread of COVID-19. The virus and these responsive measures have heavily disrupted lives, communities, and healthcare systems. Many businesses have been forced to change their operations. COVID-19 is rapidly pushing companies to operate in new ways, and the resilience of systems is being tested as never before.

In Ltd [2020] HKCFI 311, the Hong Kong Court of First Instance declined to dismiss a winding-up petition where a debtor was unable to show the existence of a bona fide dispute on substantial grounds, notwithstanding the presence of an arbitration clause in the underlying contract.

Background Facts

Recent decisions of the Hong Kong and Singapore courts show different approaches to the issue of when a winding-up petition will be allowed to proceed in circumstances where there is an arbitration agreement.

A Singaporean Court in Anan Group (Singapore) PTE Ltd v VTB Bank (Public Joint Stock Company) [2020] SGCA 33 has recently confirmed the Court’s approach in assessing arbitration clauses when an application has been brought to put a company into liquidation. 

The parties in this case are parties to an arbitration agreement.  The respondent applied to put the appellant into liquidation.  The Court considered that the winding up proceeding should be stayed with the underlying dispute to be resolved through arbitration.

The insolvency systems for companies and other legal entities vary from country to country. The main purpose of insolvency legislation, however, is fundamentally the same worldwide. If there is important value in the business, we need to protect it in order for the company to continue as a viable business and pay creditors. If the liquidation value is higher than the operational value, jurisdictions have liquidation mechanisms that allow companies to efficiently exit the market and pay creditors through an ordered sale of assets.

Even with the fiscal stimulus and other measures taken by the Federal and State governments in Australia, corporate insolvencies are likely to increase in coming months.

Under Australia’s insolvency regimes, a distressed company may be subject to voluntary administration, creditor’s voluntary winding up or court ordered winding up (collectively, an external administration). Each of these processes raises different issues for the commencement and continuation of court and arbitration proceedings.

Preparation of financial statements and corporate income tax, recommencement of time periods, remote trials, gradual return to workplaces, insolvency proceedings and compliance with criminal law