Overview
The central question in the case of Re Opti-Medix Ltd (in liquidation) and another matter [2016] SGHC 108 (Opti-Medix) was whether insolvency proceedings in a jurisdiction other than the place of incorporation could be recognised by the Singapore court.
Ex parte applications were made for (a) the recognition of foreign insolvency proceedings and (b) the appointment of a foreign bankruptcy trustee, in respect of two companies (the Companies).
Background facts
Leslie Benedict: “Money isn’t everything, Jett”
Jett Rink: “Not when you’ve got it.”
Giant (1956)
On 20 May 2015 the recast EC Regulation on Insolvency Proceedings (2015/848) (Recast Regulation) was adopted and will apply to insolvency proceedings opened after 26 June 2017 in Member States (other than Denmark). Broader in scope than the original Regulation (1346/2000) (Regulation) it replaces, the Recast Regulation introduces new rules on centre of main interests (COMI) and secondary proceedings as well as a framework for coordinating group insolvency proceedings and better communication. Helen Anderson considers the changes of most interest to banks and other lenders.
The Restructuring, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Group considers the legal, commercial and practical issues.
Do a deal quickly!
Often it is in the interests of both buyer and seller to negotiate and complete a deal as soon as possible to preserve value in the business before goodwill is tainted with any stigma of insolvency or key employees, suppliers or customers leave the business.
Buy the business not the shares
Directors and officers beware. Former directors and officers of bankrupt companies can now be found liable to pay clean-up costs for contaminated sites in Ontario, even if the contamination occurred before their tenure.
This summer has seen several pension issues making the news. They show how essential it is for employers and trustees to keep abreast of how developments impact on their arrangements.
Jay Doraisamy looks at five areas which have made the headlines this summer:
The High Court has recently considered whether a bankrupt individual of pensionable age can be forced to draw his pension to pay his creditors.
Raithatha v. Williamson [2012] EWHC 909 (Ch)
Background
A bankruptcy order was made against Mr Raithatha on 9 November 2010. Mr Raithatha's trustee in bankruptcy applied for an income payments order (IPO) against Mr Raithatha's pension shortly before he was due to be discharged from bankruptcy. Mr Raithatha was then aged 59 and his pension scheme allowed him to draw a pension from age 55.
The Supreme Court recently considered the scope of the anti-deprivation principle, in Belmont Park Investments PTY Limited (respondent) v. BNY Corporate Trustee Services Limited and Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc (appellant) [2011] UKSC 38 (Belmont). Understanding the scope of this principle is important for anyone entering a contract where the parties’ rights and obligations change if one of them enters an insolvency procedure. Robert Spedding explains how the courts applied the principle in Belmont and makes some practical suggestions for avoiding problems.
Section 163 gives the trustee the broad power to examine the bankrupt, any person who would be reasonably thought to know the affairs of the bankrupt, or any person who is or has been an agent, clerk, officer, director or employee with respect to the bankrupt or the bankrupt’s dealings. Essentially, this section gives the trustee the power to examine any person who is capable of providing information on the bankrupt.
The Commission is consulting on the application of the current Community guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty. It has provided Member States and other interested parties with a questionnaire, on which it asks for responses by 2 February 2011.